ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000

Self-Study Report for Review of Engineering Programs

2003-2004 Edition

Submitted by

AUBURN UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

July 1, 2004

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 1 1. DEGREE TITLES..............................................................................................................................................1 2. PROGRAM MODES ..........................................................................................................................................1 3. ACTIONS TO CORRECT PREVIOUS SHORTCOMINGS .....................................................................................1 4. CONTACT INFORMATION ...............................................................................................................................1

B. ACCREDITATION SUMMARY........................................................................................ 2 1. STUDENTS .......................................................................................................................................................3 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................6 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................12 4. PROFESSIONAL COMPONENT .......................................................................................................................21 5. FACULTY.......................................................................................................................................................23 6. FACILITIES....................................................................................................................................................26 7. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES .............................................................................30 8. PROGRAM CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................31 9. GENERAL ADVANCED-LEVEL PROGRAM ....................................................................................................33

II. APPENDIX I – DEPARTMENT PROFILE.................................................................... 34

A. TABULAR DATA FOR PROGRAM ............................................................................... 35 TABLE I-1. BASIC-LEVEL CURRICULUM ..............................................................................................................35 TABLE I-2. COURSE AND SECTION SIZE SUMMARY .............................................................................................37 TABLE I-3. FACULTY WORKLOAD SUMMARY......................................................................................................39 TABLE I-4. FACULTY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................41 TABLE I-5. SUPPORT EXPENDITURES ...................................................................................................................46

B. COURSE SYLLABI ........................................................................................................... 47

C. FACULTY RESUMES....................................................................................................... 93

D. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS... 114

E. SENIOR EXIT INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................... 123

F. SEMESTER TRANSITION ............................................................................................ 127

1

Self-Study Report Aerospace Engineering

A. Background Information 1. Degree Titles Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering.

2. Program Modes Courses in the undergraduate Aerospace Engineering Program are offered only on-campus and only during the day. Aerospace engineering students may participate in the co-op program, but must still meet all normal program academic requirements.

3. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings No specific program shortcomings were identified by the EAC during the previous evaluation.

4. Contact Information The primary pre-visit contact person, is Dr. John E. Cochran, Jr. Professor and Head Department of Aerospace Engineering 211 Aerospace Engineering Building Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338 (334) 844-6815 jcochran@eng.auburn.edu However, for many program details, the Program Evaluator may wish to contact Dr. Robert S. (“Steve”) Gross Undergraduate Program Coordinator Department of Aerospace Engineering 211 Aerospace Engineering Building Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338 (334) 844-6846 rgross@eng.auburn.edu

2

B. Accreditation Summary Since the last visit in 1998, the faculty members responsible for this program have focused on the ABET 2000 criteria with the objective of achieving accreditation under the new criteria, which have their foundation in Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). All departments in The College of Engineering have been involved in CQI activities for the purpose of improving each program, department and the college.

The origins of the undergraduate program in aerospace engineering are found in the courses in aeronautical engineering at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute in the late 1920’s. Over more than seven decades, the program has evolved to meet the changing educational requirements of engineers who specialize in “things that fly.” A paper on the history of aerospace education at Auburn University may be found on our website, www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/. The 2003-2004 Auburn University Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin (“the Bulletin”) web6.duc.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/academic_policies.pdf includes the following descriptive information of the current curriculum:

“Aerospace engineers are concerned with the application of scientific principles and engineering concepts and practices to design, build, test, and operate aerospace systems. The curriculum is intended to provide students with a broad understanding of fundamental scientific and technological principles, and to develop the ability to use these principles in developing solutions to engineering problems. … Required courses cover aeronautical and astronautical subjects. Students may also choose to emphasize either aeronautical or astronautical systems. Technical electives allow concentration in such areas as aerodynamics, astronautics, flight dynamics and control, propulsion, structures and structural dynamics. The design of aerospace components and systems is considered to be an integral part of the education of aerospace engineers. Hence, design is included throughout the curriculum, beginning with a sophomore course in aerospace fundamentals and culminating in the senior design course sequence. Students are required to apply their theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics, dynamics, structures and propulsion to solve open-ended problems and to produce portions of preliminary designs.”

3

1. Students Auburn University, the College of Engineering, and this department have the common purpose of providing educational opportunities in the land-grant tradition to all qualified persons. Our students are our primary constituency. 1.1 Admission

All freshmen are admitted to Auburn University under the same requirements and using the same policies and procedures, which are provided in the section, “Academic Policies,” of the Bulletin, pages 8-10, which provide in part: “Auburn University as an equal-opportunity educational institution, does not discriminate in its admissions policy on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, handicap, age or national origin. “Preference is given to the admission of Alabama residents at the undergraduate level; in considering applications to professional schools or programs with restrictive admissions policies, the length of residency in the state will be a factor. Applications for resident and non-resident students are accepted for all curricula; however, the number of students admitted is determined by the availability of facilities and faculty.” Applications are available through the Admissions Office and online from the university web site. Applicants must pay a nominal application fee of $25 ($200 for early admission consideration and $50 for international applicants).

Specific academic criteria for admission of freshmen are: “…Favorable consideration for admission will be given to accredited secondary school graduates whose college ability test scores and high school grades give promise of the greatest level of success in college courses. Secondary school students planning to apply for admission to AU should emphasize the following high school courses: English, mathematics, social studies, sciences and foreign languages.”

High school curriculum requirements are four years of English, three years of mathematics, two years of algebra, one year of geometry, trigonometry, calculus or analysis, two years of science, one year of biology, one year of physical science, and three years of social studies. It is recommended that prospective students have one additional year each of science social studies and one foreign language. Applicants are required to present scores from either the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) of the College Entrance Examination Board. Also, applicants whose native language is not English are required to demonstrate proficiency in English. A college or school in the university establishes and publishes additional recommendations to those students interested in pursuing particular courses of study. The following recommendations of the College of Engineering are provided on page 57 of the Bulletin:

“Admission Freshmen eligibility is determined by the Admissions Office. However, since the requirements for engineering education necessitate high school preparatory work of high intellectual quality and of considerable breadth, the following program is recommended as minimum preparation: English, four units; mathematics (including algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and analytical geometry), four units; chemistry, one unit; history, literature, social science, two or three units. Physics and foreign languages are recommended but not required. Transfers from other institutions must apply through the Admissions Office. The exact placement of

4

these students can be determined only upon review of their transcripts by the College of Engineering. See “Admission of Transfer Students” in the General Information section for complete requirements.”

Freshman students wishing to study aerospace engineering are admitted using these polices and procedures.

University policies and procedures for the admission of transfer students are provided on page 9 of the Bulletin. All transfer students must apply through the Admissions Office. Transfer students must have a cumulative GPA of at least 2.5 on a 4.0 scale on all college work attempted. Students transferring from a four-year institution prior to receiving a degree must be eligible to re-renter that institution. Auburn University students transferring from other colleges or schools to the college of engineering must have an overall Auburn GPA of at least 2.2 and have completed “…the first mathematics course listed in the chosen curriculum with a grade of C or better.” The placement of a student in the College of Engineering and, ultimately, in a particular department is determined on the basis of a review of that student’s transcripts by the Office of Engineering Student Services of the College of Engineering.

The Office of Engineering Student Services, in coordination with the relevant academic department, validates credit for courses taken elsewhere. The Director of that office may confer with the program coordinator of a particular department regarding individual transfer cases. For example, our Program Coordinator provides input to the Director of Engineering Student Services regarding the appropriateness of the subject matter content of courses offered by other institutions. Credit granted students transferring from community colleges in the State of Alabama is determined by an articulation agreement between the community colleges and Auburn University. Transfers into the College of Engineering during 2000 through 2003 were as follows:

• 2003 226

• 2002 236

• 2001 233

• 2000 236

Students are admitted from Pre-Aerospace Engineering to the Aerospace Engineering program according to policies and procedures set out on page 58 of the Bulletin.

“Scholastic Requirements. Pre-Engineering students are transferred to the curriculum of their choice in the College of Engineering upon meeting the following requirements: 1. Complete all appropriate freshman courses; 2. Earn an overall GPA on all required and approved elective coursework …; 3. Recommendation by the Curriculum Admissions Committee. A student who has not met the above criteria after four resident semesters is dropped from the College. Junior standing will not be granted to any student in the Pre-Engineering Program.”

5

1.2 Advising

Student advising is an integral part of our program. Pre-aerospace engineering students are advised by personnel in Engineering Student Services. Once a student is admitted to study in aerospace engineering our Program Coordinator advises him/her. Personnel in Engineering Student Services maintain the official college student records. Our Program Coordinator has access to all students’ records through the Online Auburn Student Information System (OASIS).

At the present time, our Program Coordinator advises all aerospace engineering students on a one-on-one basis. Face-to-face meetings are the main means of advisement, but communication via e-mail is used also. The Program Coordinator is assisted by an associate office administrator whose primary duties are to assist the Program Coordinator and the department’s Graduate Program Officer. The Program Coordinator monitors the progress of all students and may encourage students who appear to be having academic difficulties to contact him by blocking their registration.

Based on interviews of graduating seniors conducted by the Department Head and informal discussions with students, our students appear to be satisfied with the advising process. However, if enrollment in the program continues to increase, we will have to consider providing more advisors. The total of the enrollments in the sophomore, junior, and senior aerospace engineering classes in the fall of 2003 was 109.

1.3 Monitoring

In regard to the monitoring of students, students are encouraged to move through the curriculum at a reasonable pace. Assistance is provided in scheduling courses in the proper sequence.

Due to a variety of circumstances, at some time in their careers, some students may not meet the requirements that undergraduates must satisfy for continuation in residence (see pages 11-12 of the Bulletin). An Academic Warning is issued “… at end of any term for which the student’s cumulative GPA on Auburn course work is below 2.0.” Our Program Coordinator does not receive notice of such a warning, but can determine a student’s status on the OASIS. If a student who is on Academic Warning status does not meet the requirements set forth on pages 11 and 12 of the Bulletin, then he/she will be placed on Academic Suspension. The term of the suspension is one semester for the first suspension and two semesters for the second. The penalty for failing to meet the requirements for continuance a third time is expulsion from the university.

6

2. Program Educational Objectives The Educational Objectives of the Aerospace Engineering Program are:

1. to provide our new graduates with the necessary analytical and communication skills either to pursue graduate study or to enter the aerospace workforce directly;

2. to provide our alumni with an appreciation of the necessity to adapt, through life-long learning, to both the constantly changing needs and demands of society and to their evolving personal career goals.

These objectives are published on our web site www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/ along with the alumni questionnaire.

2.1 Consistency of Objectives with Missions of the University and College

These objectives are consistent with the mission of Auburn University:

“Auburn University's mission is defined by its land-grant traditions of service and access. The University will serve the citizens of the State through its instructional, research, and outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond successfully to the challenges of a global economy…” [Auburn University Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin 2004-2005, page 5]

Our education objectives are consistent with the mission of the College of Engineering:

“Auburn University's Samuel Ginn College of Engineering will prepare our students, through high quality, internationally recognized instructional programs, to practice engineering professionally and ethically in a competitive global environment. Expand scientific and engineering knowledge through innovative research and creative partnerships involving academia, industry, and government. Provide extension programs to assist individuals and organizations to find solutions to engineering problems through education, consulting, and practical research.” [www.eng.auburn.edu/new2003/pppp/ec2000/COE_Mission.html]

2.2 Discussion of Objectives

Regarding Educational Objective 1, although some graduates of our program enter a part of the workforce that is not categorized as “aerospace,” our program is intended to provide analytical and communication skills that will allow them to enter the aerospace workforce and/or to pursue graduate study in aerospace engineering, or a closely related field, immediately upon graduation We believe that the analytical and communication skills that our graduates have will also enable them to pursue graduate education in other areas such as business, or law, or to find jobs in other parts of the workforce if they so choose, or the economy dictates.

Regarding Educational Objective 2, faculty members frequently remind students in classroom lectures that, since aerospace engineering is a changing field, subsequent to their graduation they must continue to learn in order to remain competitive as an aerospace engineer.

7

•

irectorate, AMRDEC, AMCOM

• irector, NASA, Marshall Space Flight

•

al Affairs, College of

• ace Engineering, Auburn University

The present (and original) educational objectives were determined in a collaborative effort. Faculty members formulated objectives similar to the ones adopted. Then, the Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council (AEAC) reviewed and discussed the proposed objectives and recommended changes, which were reviewed by the faculty and incorporated. We have established a process for periodically evaluating and, if necessary, modifying these Educational Objectives. The process includes the faculty, students, alumni, and AEAC members. Annually, the faculty, students, and the AEAC review our educational objectives, and the assessment results, and recommend actions to be taken.

The Educational Objectives were developed to meet the needs of the constituencies of the program and department. We consider our students, who are later alumni, and (in some cases) citizens of the State of Alabama, to be our primary constituency. Other “constituencies,” who are more like third party beneficiaries, are the aerospace industry and government employers of our graduates. All of these are represented on various committees and boards that provide advice and feedback to the department, either directly, or indirectly. In fact, most of the above identified constituencies are represented by members of our AEAC, since it consists primarily of residents of the State of Alabama, who are, or were, affiliated with industry and/or government employers of our graduates, and were students in this department. In the Spring of 2004, the members of the AEAC were:

• Lawrence Burger '80 (ChE) Director, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Space and Missile Battle Lab

• Pete Cerny '69 Technical Director, National Missile Defense Joint Program Office, Missile Defense Agency • Louis Connor '66 President, Space & Missile Defense Technologies • Charles "Gene" Fuller '65 CEO, REMTECH, Inc. • Ronald Harris '59 Senior Executive, NASA and Boeing (retired) • Ralph Hoodless '59 Senior executive, NASA (retired) • Robert M. Jones '66 , Missile Defense Business Development Manager

Programs, Northrop-Grumman • George Landingham '70 Chief, Aerodynamics Technology; Systems

Simulation & Development Directorate; AMRDEC; AMCOM

• Mark Miller, '84, '85 Manager, Missile Systems Department, Dynetics, Inc.

• Morris Penny '59 Senior Engineer Lockheed Martin (retired)Rex Powell '49 Director Applied Sensors, Guidance, and Electronics D (retired) Axel Roth '59 Associate D Center

• Norman Speakman '72 Program Manager, AMTEC, Inc. James Voss '72, Col. Astronaut, U.S. Army (retired), NASA (currently, Associate Dean for Extern Engineering, Auburn) John Cochran '66, ’67 Department Head, Department of Aerosp

8

All members of the AEAC except Mr. Burger are graduates of our aerospace engineering program. Mr. Burger accepted membership on the Council because his interests for the last twenty plus years have been directly related to aerospace.

Since its formation in the early 1990’s, the AEAC has been actively involved in helping the department achieve its goals and objectives in regard to education and research. It meets twice a year and also at the request of the department head when circumstances warrant it.

AEAC members reviewed the aerospace engineering curriculum in the mid 1990’s and the new semester curriculum prior to its implementation in 2000. The chairman and other members, frequently provide advice to the department head on the state of the aerospace industry and the suitability of the curriculum for preparing engineering graduates to contribute. Moreover, members serve as advocates to the university administration in efforts to obtain additional resources and faculty members.

Although it pertains more to outcomes than educational objectives, we note here that two members of the AEAC, Mr. Morris Penny and Mr. Louis Connor, interviewed graduating seniors in the spring of 2002. This spring (2004) Mr. Penny interviewed eleven seniors. Among other things, these interviews were intended to measure achievement of program outcomes. Appendix I-E contains the questions and results of the 2002 interviews. The involvement of the AEAC is discussed further in the section dealing with outcomes. At the time this report was written, we did not have the results of the 2004 interviews. Those will be provided at the time of the visit. Although it is impossible to ensure 100% achievement of our educational objectives (because they are based on what our graduates achieve after graduation), we do expect that a large percentage of our graduates will either be employed in the aerospace field or enter graduate school. We are confident that our graduates who achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better are qualified to pursue post-graduate engineering education. We are confident that all our graduates are prepared for entry-level positions in aerospace engineering.

To assess how well we are achieving our educational objectives, we must determine what our graduates are doing. We have set up procedures to determine what they do immediately following graduation and (later) the degree of success they have had in graduate school or on a job (Objective 1). These procedures include asking graduating seniors about their plans during exit interviews and following up with later annual contacts. We have instituted a direct contact method for data collection by sending a letter from the Department Head and a questionnaire via e-mail to each graduate since 1997-98. We have also posted a letter and the questionnaire on our web site in case some graduates for whom we have no valid addresses visit our site.

This spring, we received 37 responses to 62 surveys (a 60% response rate) sent by e-mail to post 1998 graduates (See Appendix I-D for a copy of the survey instrument and detailed results.)

Regarding Objective 1, the responses indicate that:

• 41% entered the aerospace workforce directly;

• 32% either pursued and obtained (27%), or are still working towards (5%) an advanced degree;

• 27% entered the workforce in a non-aerospace related area (this includes military service).

9

These results are consistent with exit interviews of students conducted over the last six years by the Department Head. Results of those interviews will be provided at the time of the visit.

Of those graduates who indicated that they entered the aerospace workforce directly,

• 14% obtained a job related to aerodynamics; • 18% obtained a job related to aerospace structures; • 14% obtained a job related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and control; • 14% obtained a job related to propulsion; • 19% obtained a job related to aerospace design, modeling, and/or simulation; • 11% obtained a job in “other” aerospace applications.

We believe that this demonstrates that the Aerospace Engineering Department provides a well-balanced program which allows our graduates to successfully enter the aerospace workforce in a wide variety of program areas.

Results concerning preparation for employment and/or graduate education are contained in Table 1:

Table 1: Assessment results for Educational Objective 1

Inadequate Adequate, with Deficiencies

Adequate, with no Deficiencies

Analytical Preparation 5% 43% 52%

Oral Communications Preparation

5% 29% 66%

Written Communications Preparation

5% 23% 72%

Note: Percentages have been rounded to 100%.

Regarding the deficiencies in analytical preparation cited, two (2) individuals (5%) replied that analytical preparation was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. The primary curriculum deficiencies noted were: a lack of business related curriculum content; a lack of programming instruction, a lack of a strong enough connection between classroom theory and the “real world.” If we are to cover adequately the engineering component of our program, then there is currently no room in our curriculum for business-related content. However, students may now choose a Business-Engineering-Technology minor (16 hours of business) (Bulletin, page 58).

Regarding programming instruction, the constraint of a maximum 128 semester hours limits the number of hours that can be devoted to programming. However, FORTRAN is used in AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics and AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III, the software MATLAB is used in AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems and AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics, and NASTRAN and PATRAN are used in AERO4640 Aerospace Structures III.

Regarding the deficiencies cited in oral and written communications skills: again, 2 individuals (5%) replied that preparation was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. The major

10

deficiency cited by a large portion (of those citing deficiencies) was the need for more oral classroom presentation experiences and additional technical writing experiences. The most appropriate place (with regard to both time available and course content) for formal oral and written presentations is in our capstone design sequence courses, both aircraft and space mission design. These courses have formal presentation requirements as a significant portion of their overall content.

Regarding Objective 2, the responses to the alumni survey indicate that:

• 32% believe that their personal career goals have not changed since graduation

• 68% believe that their career goals have changed “somewhat” or “greatly”

Of all respondents 11% have moved into engineering management positions. All respondents stated that they had an appreciation for the importance of continued learning and intellectual growth.

Although it is more of a program outcome, we have information regarding life-long learning from graduating seniors who sign up for exit interviews. In 2004, eighteen graduating seniors rated their “… ability to demonstrate ... a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.” On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being outstanding, the seniors gave themselves an average score of 9.22.

The final survey question encompasses both Objective 1 and Objective 2 and relates to an overall assessment of our program with regard to its effectiveness:

• 5% said “overall, it could have been better”

• 14% said “mostly adequate, but with some deficiencies”

• 43% said “my preparation was adequate”

• 38% said “my preparation was excellent”

The primary comments about the overall curriculum were (in no particular order):

• Too little relation between textbook equations and “real world” applications

• A lack of “hands on experiences”

• Too much emphasis on “aero” and not enough on “space”

Making the connection between classroom theory and the “real world” is something that we work on continuously. Our aerodynamics labs and structures labs are parts of this effort as are our capstone design classes and seminars presented by “real” engineers (list in Appendix I-F). As an example of the latter, during Engineers Week in 2004, Lockheed-Martin engineers visited our campus and conducted a design exercise involving the placement of sensors on an F-16. More than thirty aerospace juniors participated. Other examples are: (1) the participation of students designing, building, and flying experiments in the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft Facility and designing and (2) designing, building, and flying an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for the SAE Aero Design East Heavy Lift UAV competition in 2004 and competing in that event. Usually, the aeronautical design class takes one or more field trips. Last fall they visited the Museum of Aviation at Robins AFB, and visited with Lt. General Robert E. Hails, USAF (Ret.) a 1947 graduate of our program and former commander of Robins AFB. Since the

11

last ABET visit, we have provided additional opportunities for hands-on experiences by adding another wind tunnel to our Aerodynamics Lab and a water tunnel in our Flow Visualization Lab. By this fall (2004), we plan to have a gas turbine demonstrator to provide hands-on experience related to propulsion.

We have been aware of the desire of students for additional space-related curriculum content for some time through informal comments and senior exit interviews and have begun to address that need. In particular, a former NASA astronaut, Col. James Voss (also an AEAC member) began teaching our Space Mission Design capstone courses in 2003. The experience Col. Voss brings to the classroom is priceless and is a valuable addition to the overall program. Moreover, in our current search for two “replacement” faculty members, we are looking for one who is “space oriented.”

12

3. Program Outcomes and Assessment After several months of discussion, the AE faculty found that the various outcomes created by the faculty consistently overlapped the ABET outcomes a-k of criterion 3. Consequently, it seemed natural to simply adopt these ABET outcomes as program outcomes. However, beyond the Basic ABET outcomes, one additional outcome, unique to aerospace engineering was established for our program. That additional outcome (outcome l) is

“The students must demonstrate a basic knowledge in aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion.”

Program outcomes and educational objectives are necessarily related. Table 2 indicates which outcomes directly affect the achievement of our educational objectives.

Table 2. Relationship of Educational Objectives to Program Outcomes.

Outcomes Educational

Objectives 1 2

a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering appropriate to aerospace engineering

x

b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

x

c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs x

d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams x e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems x f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility x g) an ability to communicate effectively x x h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering in a

societal context x x

i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to, engage in life-long learning x j) a knowledge of contemporary issues x x k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools

necessary for engineering practice x x

l) the students must demonstrate a basic knowledge in aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics, and propulsion

x

13

3.1 Process for Improvement

The ABET 2000 process is analogous in many respects to an adaptive feedback control process. In the design of a conventional feedback control system, criteria are selected. Sensors are used to measure outputs of the plant (system to be controlled), the structure of gains is determined to produce modified output, the modified output is fed back and combined with commanded input, and the result passed through a compensator to the plant system. The gains are then adjusted to produce output of the closed loop system that meets the criteria. In the case of an educational program, we can use similar ideas to “control” the program and also to modify it.

We have selected criteria to use in designing our program; we have developed assessment methods (sensors) for measuring the outcomes (outputs) of our program (plant); and we are addressing the issue of how best to use the information obtained as feedback (gains and compensator) to modify our program.

3.2 Sources of Assessment Information

Five sources of information that have been used to assess our program outcomes: (1) course work, (2) a Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument, (3) the portions of the Educational Objectives Survey Questionnaire that pertain to specific outcomes, (4) the portions of the AEAC Senior Interviews that pertain to specific outcomes, and (5) Department Head Senior Exit Interviews and Senior Self-Assessment of their perception that they have achieved the outcomes. Table 3 shows the relationships of the outcomes and sources of information.

Table 3. Outcome Assessment Information Sources.

Outcome Sources

1 2 3 4 5 a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. x x x b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data x

c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs x x d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams x x e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems x x f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility x x

g) an ability to communicate effectively x x x h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global context. x x

i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning x x x x j) a knowledge of contemporary issues x x k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice x x x x

l) The students must demonstrate a basic knowledge in aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion

x x

14

(1) Course WorkThe first source provides information that can be used to directly assess ABET outcomes a-k of Criterion 3. We feel that a student’s successful completion (passing) of each of the courses within our program is substantial evidence that each student has satisfactorily accomplished our basic program outcomes.

Each of the required curricular courses addresses a one or more of the basic a-k outcomes. The matrix correlation between the individual courses and the basic a-k outcomes is defined in Table 4.

Table 4. Course-Outcome Matrix Course/Outcome a b c d e f g h i j k AERO 2200 X X AERO 3110 X X X X X X X X AERO 3120 X X X X X X X X X AERO 3130 X X X X X X X X X X X AERO 3220 X X X X X X X X AERO 3230 X X X X X X X X X X AERO 3310 X X X X X X X X AERO 3610 X X X X X X X X AERO 4@@0 AERO 4140 X X X X X X X X AERO 4510 X X X X X X X X X X X AERO 4620 X X X X X X X X AERO 4630 X X X X X X X AERO 4640 X X X X X X X X AERO 4710 X X X X X X X X X X X AERO 4720 X X X X X X X X X X X AERO 4730 X X X X X X X X X X X AERO 4740 X X X X X X X X X X X CHEM 1030 X PHYS 1600 X PHYS 1610 X MATH 1610 X MATH 1620 X MATH 2630 X MATH 2650 X MATH 2660 X COMP 1200 X ENGR 1100 X X X ENGR 1110 X ENGR 2010 X ENGR 2050 X ENGR 2070 X ENGR 2350 X ELEC 3810 X

15

The assessment methods employed within each course to measure compliance with the basic outcomes vary from course to course. These assessment methods are detailed on the Criteria page of each of the course syllabi. In addition, most faculty members ask the students to evaluate the course material and instructor performance through use of a Course/Instructor Evaluation that is completed by the students near the end of each course. Faculty may choose to use a university-supplied Course/Instructor Evaluation form or may decide to create a form unique to their course. After review by the Department Head, the evaluation forms are forwarded to the individual faculty members for use in improving the particular course.

(2) Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument

The faculty felt very strongly that the assessment of outcome l would require the creation of an assessment instrument that existed outside of the program curricula. This instrument was named the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument (CPAI). The philosophy underlying the instrument was the desire to try to measure the “permanent” knowledge of each graduating student in the areas of aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion. Here, the term “permanent” pertains to knowledge that resides with the student long after they have completed their basic coursework.

The details of the CPAI are

1. A required, zero credit, pass/fail, course entitled AERO 4@@0 (The use is @@ in the number indicates a special, non-credit, course.), Program Assessment, has been created as a vehicle for administering the CPAI instrument.

2. The AERO 4@@0 course is included in the program curriculum in the spring

semester of the senior year (see Table I-1) and it meets once every week for a 50 minute period.

3. The CPAI consists of five separate components with one each in

aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion.

4. Each component of the CPAI is presented in the form of short-answer

questions. These questions are ones that the faculty felt should be adequately answered by all of the graduates of our program. In other words, these are questions concerning basic concepts in each of the five component areas.

5. The faculty did not want the students to prepare (study) in any way for the

CPAI, since the premise of the instrument is that it should be a measure of “permanent,” not short-term knowledge. The satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading scheme was constructed in such a way as to discourage the student from preparing. A “satisfactory” grade in the course is earned, not by achieving any particular numerical grade on each component of the CPAI but, by simply completing each component.

16

6. One component of the CPAI is given during each weekly meeting of the course and the students have 50 minutes to complete the particular part of the instrument.

The basic goal of the early versions of the CPAI was to help faculty members improve the instruction in the “associated” courses. The current associated courses and faculty members involved in the CPAI are detailed in Table 5.

Table 5. Current CPAI Associated Courses and Faculty.

Component Associated Courses Faculty

Aerodynamics AERO 3110: Aerodynamics I and AERO 3120: Aerodynamics II

Burkhalter

Structures/Materials AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I Gross

Orbital Mechanics AERO 3310: Orbital Mechanics Cicci

Flight Dynamics AERO 3230: Flight Dynamics Cochran

Propulsion AERO 4510: Aerospace Propulsion Jenkins

As the CPAI evolves, the coverage will increase to include more of the required courses and faculty members. Eventually, the CPAI will evolve into an instrument addressing more courses and involving more faculty members as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Future CPAI Associated Courses and Faculty.

Component Associated Courses Faculty

Aerodynamics AERO 3110: Aerodynamics I, AERO 3120: Aerodynamics II, and AERO 4140: Aerodynamics III

Ahmed, Roy, Barrett

Structures/Materials AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I and AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II

Gross

Foster

Orbital Mechanics AERO 3310: Orbital Mechanics Cicci

Cochran

Flight Dynamics AERO 3230: Flight Dynamics and AERO 3220: Aerospace Systems

Cochran

Cicci

Propulsion AERO 4510: Aerospace Propulsion Hartfield

17

The CPAI was first introduced during the 2002-2003 academic year. The results for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 years are shown in Table 7. After the 2002-2003 CPAI was completed and graded, several questions were modified to improve their clarity. Modifications to the 2002-2003 instrument to obtain the 2003-2004 version also involved the replacement of a few questions by the participating faculty members with ones they felt improved the scope of the instrument.

Looking at the CPAI results, it is obvious that the graduating students have not performed as well as the participating faculty would have expected. In particular, the results in the structures/materials area are somewhat surprising because the AEAC senior interviews indicate that structures/materials is a strong area (response to question 8). Perhaps the questions on that part of the CPAI do not adequately measure the students’ knowledge. It is more likely that given the relatively small number of students and only a two-year time span, it is not feasible to perform a detailed statistical analysis of the results.

The participating faculty members are responding to the latest results of the CPAI by altering the course material and presentation methods in the associated courses. Details of this will be provided during the visit. However, the main change will be that those concepts deemed to be most important will be emphasized more by examples, problems and on tests. A list of important concepts will also be provided to the students and specifically discussed at the beginning of each course.

To establish a good statistical baseline, no major alterations of the current CPAI questions are planned. Additional questions will be added over the next few years as the number of courses covered by the CPAI is increased according to the plan detailed in Table 6.

Table 7. CPAI Results.

Component/Students Average Grade

2002-2003

Average Grade

2003-2004

Target Grade*

Aerodynamics 61% 49% 70%

Structures/Materials 43% 48% 80%

Orbital Mechanics 67% 70% 80%

Flight Dynamics 77% 77% 80%

Propulsion 62% 68% 70%

Number of Students 22 38 * Acceptable grade selected by the participating faculty member.

18

(3) Educational Objectives Questionnaire

The Educational Objectives Questionnaire has been discussed supra regarding its primary purpose of assessing the longer term objectives. However, due the relationships between outcomes and objectives, some of the questions provide longer-term assessment information on outcomes from the former student perspective.

In particular the information provided in Table 1 regarding Objective 1 addresses directly outcomes a, g, i, and k. It should be noted that 95% of the responding alumni considered that they had adequately achieved these four outcomes.

(4) Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council Senior Exit Interviews

The responses to some of the questions asked during the 2002 relate to outcomes b, c, d, g, k, and l. AEAC members asked seniors if team projects were utilized, about their use of computers, about the strong points of laboratory instruction, and where improvements could be made. The student responses in 2002 (Appendix E) indicate that:

• Laboratory instruction is good [Outcome b)] and more “hands-on” experience is desired by students

• The senior design courses [Outcome c)] provide “valuable insight into concept development through construction”

• Team projects [Outcome d)] have been utilized and that students would like more such projects

• Some students would have liked to have had more instruction in making oral presentations [Outcome g)]

• Overall, the students felt “very comfortable” using computers and more programming instruction and focus on engineering tools [Outcome k)] would be beneficial

• Most students thought that the curriculum was strong in structures and aerodynamics and some would have liked more emphasis on orbital mechanics and/or propulsion [Outcome l)]

(5) Department Head Senior Exit Interviews and Senior Self-Assessment

Senior exit interviews have been conducted by the present department head for eleven years. In general the results for the last three years have been consistent with the interviews conducted by the AEAC members in 2002. This year, in addition to the Department Head soliciting comments about the quality of instruction and content of courses and improvements that might be made in the curriculum and facilities, the twelve seniors participating in the interviews were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 the best score) regarding their perceived achievement of outcomes a-k. Table 8 provides the mean values of their responses.

Table 8. Senior Self-Assessment of Outcome Objectives.

Outcome

Mean Value

a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. 7.58

b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

7.33

c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs 7.33

d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams 8.33 e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems 8.00 f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility 8.67

g) an ability to communicate effectively 8.42

h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global context.

7.67

i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning 9.17 j) a knowledge of contemporary issues 7.25 k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools

necessary for engineering practice 7.83

3.3 Analysis of Outcomes Information

Our outcomes (a-k, and l) are measured by the five (5) methods: (1) course work, (2) the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument (CPAI), which specifically measures outcome l, (3) portions of our Educational Objectives Survey Questionnaire that also pertain to our outcomes, (4) portions of the AEAC Senior interviews that pertain to specific outcomes, and (5) Department Head Senior Exit Interviews and Senior Self-Assessment of achievement of outcomes a-k. Although we have only limited feedback from students and alumni on our ABET outcomes and objectives, we have been able to evaluate and interpret the evidence we have. In particular, some trends have emerged in the common comments from both groups.

First, overall, our “constituents” are generally satisfied with what we are giving/have given them. Second, there are three areas of concern that we should consider addressing:

1) programming instruction and/or experience, including CAD CAM 2) “real world” and/or “hands-on” experience 3) oral and/or written presentation instruction and/or experience

19

Regarding 1), we have a computer course in our curriculum (COMP 1200 Introduction to Computing for Engineers and Scientists, 2 hrs), but it is, as the number indicates in the freshmen year. Hence applications of the material learned are limited. Also, we have a number of homework assignments and projects that require the use of programming, especially using

20

MATLAB. Our labs and design courses provide “hands-on” experiences that should be addressing 2). Finally, our design courses provide opportunities for students to develop technical communication skills. (Related material will be provided to the Evaluator.)

However, our constituents think there could be some improvement in these areas. Therefore, we are currently studying them using a four-step procedure:

1. Determine whether there is a real problem in the any of the areas. That is, is there a systematic problem?

2. Determine for a systematic problem, if the best response is to add one or more courses to our program curriculum, to modify the content of existing courses, or another solution we have not yet identified.

3. Implement the response, e.g., develop the new course or modification and put it into the program.

4. Determine the effect of implementing the response.

We want to be careful in implementing changes. We developed a completely new curriculum for the semester system that went into effect in 2000 and have already made some modifications in courses. One in particular is AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals, where we have added some elementary performance material (outcome l). The assessment that motivated this change was the CPAI and informal faculty discussions. This change seems to have improved the starting point for students in AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics. In response to the comments regarding programming and the use of engineering software (outcome k), by graduating seniors in both the Department Head exit interviews and those conducted by the AEAC members in 2002, this spring more MATLAB applications were introduced in AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems and AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics. The textbook for AERO 3220 was also changed (see syllabus) to one that has many MATLAB examples. Additional examples of similar types of changes made by faculty members in courses they teach will be provided during the visit.

During this summer, we should be able to complete steps 1 and 2. Regarding step 2, our curriculum currently has 128 hrs, which is less than most of our peers. As examples, the number of hours in the aerospace engineering curricula at Georgia Tech and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University are 132 and 136 hrs, respectively. See, also, Appendix I-F.

In addition to addressing the areas of concern indicated above, we will continue to evaluate and modify our assessment methods. It was noted above that the results from the CPAI are probably not as good as we would like and that we will modify the CPAI as we obtain sufficient data to determine appropriate modifications. We will have more definite plans by this fall and, by putting them into effect in our courses, better CPAI results by next spring.

21

4. Professional Component The aerospace engineering faculty believes that effective instruction in aerospace engineering subjects requires that the student have a strong foundation in mathematics, basic science, and engineering science. The majority of the courses in our curriculum are necessarily designed to provide our students with the technical knowledge and skills that graduate engineers need and the ability to engage in life-long learning as alumni. As shown in Appendix A, Table 1, our curriculum contains the requisite college level mathematics and basic science courses.

Our current curriculum was developed during 1998-1999 for the semester system, which was implemented in 2000 (see Appendix I-F). All who were faculty members during 1998-1999 participated in the curriculum development. There were many discussions as to how many hours should be devoted to aerodynamics, structures and structural dynamics, propulsion, flight dynamics, and orbital mechanics. We think the present curriculum is good compromise.

4.1 Foundation and Core Courses

The foundation courses along with the core courses, which provide written communication skills, support the professional component of our curriculum. The core courses provide 30 of the 32 required hours of math/science. Two courses in the professional component, AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I and AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems, contain one hour each of math/science content. Specifically covered in these two courses are aspects of material science and statistics and the solution of systems linear differential equations using Laplace transforms, respectively. Evidence of coverage of these two hours of math/science, in the form of the course textbooks, homework and tests, will be provided to the visitor.

The professional component contains eleven hours of aerodynamics; four hours of propulsion; four hours of flight dynamics, two hours of linear system analysis; six hours of structures; three hours of structural dynamics; and three hours of orbital mechanics. It also includes six hours of electives. However, these six hours are undesignated so that students can receive credit for ROTC classes. Our capstone senior design courses in space mission design and aircraft design, respectively, provide each student with a cumulative experience in which they apply mathematical and analytical skills and engineering knowledge to produce, individually, and in teams, preliminary designs and, often, working prototypes.

Regarding student understanding and appreciation of specifications, individual faculty members incorporate lecture content and problems into many individual courses to give students an appreciation for the engineering constraints and specifications. However, the principal courses that emphasize the importance and use of engineering constraints and specifications are AERO 4710 and 4720 Aircraft Design I and II, and AERO 4730 and 4740 Space Mission Design.

4.2 Capstone Design Courses

Students choose between aeronautical and space design options. In AERO 4710 students learn the design process and apply it to do individual preliminary designs of aircraft. The course is based, for the most part, Roskam’s aircraft design procedures. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations are discussed and used as specifications for preliminary designs. A team project format is used for AERO 4720 and a design, build, and fly approach is used in which the teams build small remotely controlled aircraft. As an example of a student team constructing a

22

successful small aircraft, in April 2004, an aircraft design team, which included all members of the AERO 4720 class, won First Place Overall in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aero East competition of the SAE Aero Design Series. The heavy lift Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) they designed, built, and flew necessarily met competition constraints. The team also received the Award of Most Professionalism (decided by a vote of their peers) from the SAE North Florida Section. The team will compete in the Aero West competition this summer.

The space option consists of AERO 4730 and 4740 Space Mission Design I and II. The format and content of these courses has varied somewhat over the last six years due to changes in instructor. For most of the last six years, students in the space mission design courses worked in teams to design and build experiments and then fly them on the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft Facility. These experiments necessarily meet flight specifications. During 2003-2004, the students who choose the space option were extremely fortunate to have, Col. James Voss, a former astronaut, as their instructor. Col. Voss has experienced manned space flight on the Space Shuttle Orbiter and the International Space Station Freedom and worked for NASA after retirement form the U. S. Army. His class concentrated on manned spacecraft mission analysis capitalized on not only Col. Voss’ experience, but also that of NASA professionals as guest lecturers. In the Space Mission Design courses, realistic engineering, economic, and political constraints were considered.

All aerospace engineering graduates either take the courses in the university core curriculum, or take similar courses at other institutions that are validated through our transfer procedures. Our students therefore take general education courses that complement their technical education by producing communication skills, providing knowledge of history and ethics, instilling a sense of social responsibility, and forming an appreciation of the fine arts.

Although not a part of our curriculum, the involvement of students in the Auburn University Student Chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is an important part of their professional growth.

23

5. Faculty The aerospace engineering faculty is dedicated to excellence in undergraduate instruction. At the present time, ten full-time faculty members are actively involved in teaching undergraduate courses. This number is, we think, sufficient for the undergraduate program. We would like to add some faculty to strengthen our Master of Science, Master of Aerospace Engineering, and Doctor of Philosophy programs that are also important parts of this department’s mission. All current faculty members are well-qualified. They have terminal degrees in aerospace engineering, or a closely related engineering discipline. Most have received teaching awards, some multiple awards.

Generally, the faculty members spend a large portion of their time outside the classroom with students. All have office hours and, to the extent possible, open-door policies. Dr. Ron Barrett employs undergraduate students in the Adaptive Aerostructures Lab. He has successfully advised winners in the AIAA southeastern undergraduate paper competition. Dr. Anwar Ahmed has advised the Auburn chapter Sigma Gamma Tau and assisted them in projects, including one in connection with the Centennial Year of Flight.

Students frequently work with Dr. Ahmed on special projects involving experimental fluid mechanics. Dr. Steve Gross has taught AERO 4730-40 Space Mission Design and helped students get funding for experiments on the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft. As noted above, the department has supported student involvement in the SAE AERO Design East competition.

All faculty members are members of AIAA; many are members of AIAA technical committees; all serve as reviewers of technical journals. Five faculty members have full-time industrial or government experience. Those who do not have such experience have been employed in industry/government during summers and/or have been involved in consulting. Six of ten faculty members are Registered Professional Engineers.

Table I-4 provides faculty information in tabular form. The following is additional supporting information.

Anwar Ahmed has over eighteen years of teaching experience at the university level and is a recognized expert in experimental fluid dynamics, especially flow visualization. He is the director of our wind tunnel facilities (Aerodynamics Lab). Currently, he is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee.

Ronald M. Barrett is on leave at the University of Deft until the fall of 2004. He regularly teaches the aircraft design courses. He has over eleven years of experience in teaching and has received international recognition for his work in smart structures and the design and prototyping of adaptive aerostructures using smart materials and composites. His designs for UAVs have also received international attention. Many undergraduates get hands-on experience in his lab.

John E. Burkhalter has over thirty-six years of experience in teaching at the university level. He is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and has been the chair of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. Dr. Burkhalter is nationally recognized as an applied aerodynamicist. He teaches undergraduate and graduate aerodynamics courses. He has collaborated with Jenkins and Hartfield to develop new methods and computer programs for missile design that have received accolades from the U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. He is also an excellent instructor. He plans to retire November 30, 2004.

24

David A. Cicci is an excellent teacher who has a national reputation in astrodynamics, especially in the sub areas of orbit determination and applications of filtering techniques. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in orbital mechanics and orbit determination as well as dynamics and the fundamentals of engineering mechanics course. Dr. Cicci is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and the American Astronautical Society and is currently a member of the AAS Space Flight Mechanics Committee. For many years, he was faculty adviser of the student AIAA chapter. He has seventeen years of teaching experience.

John E. Cochran, Jr.’s primary expertise is in dynamics and control. He has made research contributions in both atmospheric flight dynamics and astrodynamics and has an international reputation in spacecraft attitude dynamics and control. He is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and formerly an associate editor of the Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics. He is a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society and currently a director of that organization. He is a member of the editorial board of Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. Dr. Cochran has over thirty-six years of experience in university teaching and has been department head since 1993. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in flight dynamics and aerospace systems and graduate courses in flight dynamics and astrodynamics. Prior to the university’s conversion to the semester system, he taught engineering law and ethics.

Winfred A. “Butch” Foster, as the university’s expert on NASTRAN and PATRAN, teaches structural dynamics courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research on modeling of soil wheel interaction has received national recognition. He has also worked for many years in the area of solid rocket propulsion. He has more than thirty years of teaching experience. Dr. Foster is currently a member of the AIAA Solid Rockets Technical Committee and chair of its history subcommittee. He is also an associate editor of the Journal of Propulsion and Power.

Robert Steven Gross’ primary area of expertise is composite materials. He is an outstanding instructor who has received university as well as college teaching awards. Dr. Gross teaches the first structures course, the freshman introductory course, statics, dynamics, and the fundamentals of engineering mechanics course for chemical and electrical engineering students. He has developed a non-credit “course” AERO 4@@0. (The strange designation X@@X is used for a zero credit course.) that provides a time and place for assessment involving students. As the Program Coordinator and advisor for all students, he has a significant work load, especially with our current enrollment, but he is currently serving as AIAA faculty advisor. He has seventeen years of university teaching experience.

Roy J. Hartfield is a physicist and aerospace engineer with fourteen years of teaching experience. His specializations are non-obtrusive measurements of high-speed flows and propulsion. He is also an excellent teacher of service courses such as dynamics. Recently, he has teamed with Dr. Burkhalter is developing high-fidelity models of tactical missiles and the missile design program mentioned above that uses genetic algorithms. He also exhibits flexibility by directing wind tunnel tests of models of Air Force aircraft. Dr. Hartfield is a Senior Member of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. He has a national reputation in aerodynamics and in propulsion.

Rhonald M. Jenkins is an excellent instructor as evidenced by the many teaching awards he has received. His primary expertise is in air-breathing propulsion, but he has over twenty-six years

of experience teaching rocket propulsion and space propulsion courses and has taught AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals as well. He is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA. He has collaborated with Burkhalter and Hartfield on major projects involving missile design and in teaching short courses that have received accolades from the U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. Dr. Jenkins plans to retire August 1, 2004.

Christopher J. Roy is the newest member of the aerospace engineering faculty, arriving from Sandia National Laboratories in the fall of 2003. His expertise is in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The focus of his work at Sandia Laboratories was aerodynamics of high-speed vehicles, which he has maintained. Dr. Roy was hired through the Transportation Peak of Excellence and is expected to do a good deal of transportation related research. He is a Senior Member of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Fluid Dynamics TC and the Committee on Standards for CFD. He has presented his work on validation and verification of CFD computer code in AIAA short courses and at numerous technical meetings. He has two years of teaching experience.

In addition to these regular, full-time faculty members, we have been fortunate this year to have Col. James S. Voss (U.S. Army, Ret.) teach our Space Mission Design courses (AERO 4730 and AERO 4740). As an astronaut, he flew on the Space Shuttle and helped construct and later operate the International Space Station. Col. Voss’ official position is Associate Dean for External Affairs, but he has spent a lot of time with aerospace engineering students this year and has added a new dimension to our program.

Table 9 provides a faculty subject matter specialization summary. Note that, like the faculty of many aerospace programs, we are heavily weighted toward specialization in aerodynamics. However, all the courses in the curriculum are taught by faculty members with specialization in the pertinent area.

Table 9. Faculty Subject Matter Specialization.

Aerodynamics Astrodynamics Flight Dynamics

Propulsion Structures/Materials

Design

Ahmed X Barrett X X X Burkhalter X Cicci X Cochran X X Foster X X Gross X X Jenkins X X Hartfield X X Roy X Voss X

25

26

6. Facilities

The facilities directly available to the aerospace engineering program include classrooms, study areas, faculty and graduate student offices, conference rooms, a computational lab, a wood working shop and laboratories.

The aerospace engineering program facilities are located in the Aerospace Engineering Building (AEB), which was completed in 1992, and the L-Building. The AEB consists of two, three-story structures that are connected by enclosed walkways. The southern part is designed for classrooms. The northern part (AEBN) is also physically connected to Harbert Hall, which houses the Department of Civil Engineering. All three structures are designated as the Harbert Engineering Center.

The L-Building, which is one of the oldest buildings on the Auburn University main campus, is located within a block of the AEB. A portion of the L-Building houses the wind tunnel facilities.

6.1 Classrooms and Study Areas

The southern part of the AEB is referred to as the Shared Classroom Building (SCB). As its name indicates, this structure contains twelve classrooms, a study area, and an air traffic control/flight simulator laboratory used by students in Aviation Management and Logistics. One classroom (AE 357) is a video conferencing room that is used by many departments, but particularly by Nursing. Except for AE 357, the classrooms in the SCB are used primarily for engineering lectures by the Departments of Aerospace, Chemical, Civil, and Mechanical Engineering. However, depending on availability, other university units may schedule use of classrooms. All classrooms are equipped with desks or tables and chairs, podiums, chalk boards, overhead projectors, and pull-down screens. This spring (2004), the four departments noted above collaborated on a successful proposal to obtain university funds to purchase and install document cameras and projectors in three of the SCB classrooms. The study area in the SCB (designated AE 351) is used by students between classes. Aerospace students have a room (AE 337) in the AEBN that is designated for study.

Two classrooms are located in the northern part of the AEB. One (AE 302) is a relatively small general classroom. The second classroom (AE 215) is used almost exclusively for design classes. It adjoins a room in which computers designated for design are located.

Most aerospace engineering classes are taught in the SCB. Those that are not, are taught in AE 302 in AEBN (see below), Ramsay Hall, which is next door, or, infrequently, in Broun Hall auditorium, which is less than a block from the AEB.

6.2 Faculty Offices and Conference Rooms

Faculty offices are on the third floor of the northern part of the AEB. All faculty members have private offices that are adequate in size and furnishings. Most graduate student offices are also located on the third floor. Ordinarily, graduate teaching assistants share offices, with no more than three graduate teaching assistants in one office.

A large conference room on the second floor (AE 205) is used for faculty meetings and for small classes that involve student presentations. A smaller conference room (AE 207) is used by faculty and for smaller groups and by the Program Coordinator when meeting with prospective students and their parents.

27

6.3 Computational Laboratory

The aerospace Computational Lab (AE 330) provides sixteen Pentium PCs for students to use while on campus. Software packages such as MATLAB and SolidEdge are available. Students in many courses, including AERO 3220 and AERO 3230 use this lab.

6.4 Main Office and Staff Offices

The main office (AE 211) includes a reception/work area, faculty, staff, and graduate student mailboxes and an area for the copy machine and some supplies. Offices for the department head, his/her secretary and other administrative staff are also located on the second floor. Offices for two staff, the electrical engineer and the model builder/machinist are located on the first floor of the AEBN.

6.5 Laboratories

The principal undergraduate instructional laboratories are the Aerodynamics and Structures Labs. As mentioned above in Section 5, many undergraduate students work in the Adaptive Aerostructures Lab (AE 222). However, it is not used for a scheduled lab. Part of the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab (AE 206B) is used primarily for research. The other part (AE 206A) is a video conferencing room that has multiple uses.

Descriptions of laboratory facilities follow.

Aerodynamics Laboratory. As noted above, this lab is located in the L-Building. It includes two subsonic and three supersonic wind tunnels as well as a low-speed smoke tunnel for flow visualization. The principal tunnel used for research is a closed-circuit, single-return, low-speed wind tunnel with a 3 ft by 4.25 ft test section in which the flow speed may be varied from 0 to approximately 140 mph. Different types of mounting hardware and balances are available, including floor mounted with a six degree-of-freedom balance and angle of attack control, as shown in Fig. 1, and sting-mounted with a three degree-of-freedom balance. Although used primarily for instruction of undergraduate students, an open-circuit, low-speed wind tunnel with a 2 ft by 2 ft test section can be used for research. In this tunnel the wind speed may be varied from 0 to 120 mph. A 4 in by 4 in “blow-down” supersonic wind tunnel capable of testing at Mach numbers from 1.5 to 3.5 is used principally for instruction. A Schlieren system is used to detect shock waves optically. Inserts can be used to change the geometry of the inlet of the test section of the 7-inch by 7-inch in-draft supersonic wind tunnel and produce discrete test section Mach numbers between 1.4 and 3.28. This wind tunnel can be used for research projects. A master model builder constructs wind tunnel models in the Machine Tool Laboratory. An example of this laboratory’s use is a C-130 aircraft model constructed using a plastic kit model as the basis.

This lab is used in connection with the aerodynamics laboratory course AERO 3130 and for the static stability lab portion of AERO 3230

Adaptive Aerostructures/Composites Laboratory. This laboratory was developed using primarily funds from extramural contracts and grants. It is used for teaching, but the process is informal. Students with special projects use the lab and many students work part-time in it. The lab was used by the student team that placed first in the regular category of the SAE AERO Design East competition. Space for this lab is provided in AE 217, which is used for design and some testing, and AE 222, which doubles as the Composites Lab since adaptive aerostructures are

28

made primarily from composite materials. AE 222 contains equipment and work space necessary to manufacture small thermoset composite parts and test specimens. A microprocessor-controlled, floor model, Blue-M convection oven with internal dimensions of 48 in x 48 in x 36 in is employed to cure composite parts. Cold storage equipment is available for long-term thermoset prepreg storage. Structural test data is obtained for the manufactured composite specimens by using the servo-hydraulic testing machine and the data acquisition equipment in the Structures Laboratory. AE 222 holds all equipment needed for constructing adaptive structures containing components made from “active” materials such as peizo-ceramics, testing the performance of these structures, and incorporating them into working prototypes of micro-aerial vehicles.

This lab is used by students doing design projects the involve composites.

Structures and Structural Dynamics Laboratory. This lab is located in AE 106 and AE 109. It is equipped with a large loading frame and hydraulic loading system for tensile, compression, and fatigue testing. Facilities are available for strain gage and dynamic measurements. Experimental data is processed using a Digital System-4000 data-acquisition, data-reduction system.

Students enrolled in AERO 3610 Structures I and AERO 4620 Structures III use this lab.

Flow Visualization Laboratory. It has been often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The Flow Visualization Lab in AE 120 is the realization of this axiom in regard to fluid flow. Air is a “watery fluid” and the flow of water, which is more easily visualized than the flow of air, may be used to learn a great deal about the basic mechanisms involved in both media. The principal equipment in this lab is a 45 cm x 45 cm test section water tunnel. The water tunnel has a maximum speed of 1.2 meters per second and is equipped with the latest instrumentation for visualization and flow measurements. This includes planar and stereoscopic particle image velocimeter, hot film anemometer, high speed imager, pulsed and continuous wavefront lasers for laser induced fluorescence, and a multiple color dye injection system. Specially designed flow tanks and channels for the study vortex dominated flows are also a part of the flow visualization laboratory.

This lab is used in connection with AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I.

Flight Dynamics and Control/Center for Advanced Simulation and Technology Laboratories. These laboratories are located in AE 206, Rooms A & B. The Center for Advanced Simulation and Technology (CAST) Laboratory and the Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory are co-located because in both flight dynamics and control and transportation systems computers are utilized in simulations. The pre-existing Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory was improved significantly using funds from a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grant.

Room 206 A is a multi-media/video-conferencing room that has a seating capacity of 20. Room control is via an AMX Ascent III control system. Multi-media equipment includes a NEC GT 2150 LCD projector, a Da-Lite Cosmopolitan 8 ft screen, a Samsung 6000 document camera, a custom lecture, a Dell 8200 PC, a Smart Podium IM 150 flat display, a Panasonic PSSV1421 SVHS VCR, a Telex FMR wireless lavalier microphone system. Roland speakers, and a Biamp Advantage 801 audio mixer. The video-conferencing component includes a Tandberg 6000 Video Conference Codec, an Audio Science PZM microphone, two Sony EVID cameras, a Panasonic 27” monitor, an Extron RGBHV DA, and a “video brick.”

29

Room 206B is the simulation development portion of the CAST Lab. It contains computers, displays, wireless interface equipment, GPS receivers, printers, and office furniture for personnel. Available software includes MATLAB, TruckSim, and Satellite Tool Kit.

AE 206A is used for student presentations.

30

7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources Confidential financial information deleted from this version.7.0

8. Program Criteria The program criterion for aerospace engineering that applies to the curriculum has been met by providing courses and testing. Our curriculum includes (a) courses and learning experiences that allow graduates to acquire a knowledge of aerodynamics, astrodynamics (orbital mechanics), flight dynamics (flight mechanics and stability and control), propulsion, and aerospace materials/structures and (b) senior design courses that integrate that knowledge in either aircraft design or space mission design. Table 13 indicates which specifically address the six areas.

Table 13. Program Courses for Aerospace Engineering.

AREA COURSES

AERODYNAMICS AERO 2200 AEROSPACE FUNDAMENTALS

AERO 3110 AERODYNAMICS I

AERO 3120 AERODYNAMICS II

AERO 3130 AERODYNAMICS LABORATORY

AERO 4140 AERODYNAMICS III

ASTRODYNAMICS AERO 3310 ORBITAL MECHANICS

FLIGHT DYNAMICS AERO 3220 AEROSPACE SYSTEMS

AERO 3230 FLIGHT DYNAMICS

PROPULSION AERO 4510 AEROSPACE PROPULSION

STRUCTURES/MATERIALS AERO 3610 AEROSPACE STRUCTURES I

AERO 4620 AEROSPACE STRUCTURES II

AERO 4630 AEROSPACE STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

AERO 4640 AEROSPACE STRUCTURES III

DESIGN AERO 4710 AIRCRAFT DESIGN I

AERO 4720 AIRCRAFT DESIGN II

AERO 4730 SPACE MISSION DESIGN I

AERO 4740 SPACE MISSION DESIGN II

“Testing” of students is accomplished in each course, as discussed above, to assess that each student has acquired adequate knowledge and design competence. “Testing” for design competence includes having the students prepare written reports and make presentations.

31

The second criterion pertains to the responsibility and authority of the faculty to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives. The faculty members responsible for the aerospace engineering program are organized and operate within the Department of Aerospace Engineering as a unit of the College of Engineering. The faculty is responsible for the curriculum and has

32

sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve, the aerospace program objectives. All faculty members understand current professional practice in the aerospace industry. Evidence of this is provided by their involvement in the AIAA, as described above, and other aerospace related professional organizations, their experience in industry and/or consulting, and the registration of six faculty members as Professional Engineers.

33

9. General Advanced-Level Program Not applicable.

34

II. APPENDIX I – DEPARTMENT PROFILE

A. Tabular Data for Program Table I-1. Basic level Curriculum

Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary

Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary

Table I-4. Faculty Analysis

Table I-5. Support Expenditures

B. Course Syllabi C. Faculty Curriculum Vitae D. Educational Objectives Survey Instrument and Results E. Senior Interviews F. Semester Transition

35

A. Tabular Data for Program Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum

(Aerospace Engineering)

Category (Credit Hours)

Year; Semester

Course (Department, Number, Title)

Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design ( )

General Education Other

1st Yr Fall MATH 1610 Calculus I 4

Core History I 3

CHEM 1030 Chemistry I 4

ENGL 1100 Written Composition I 3

COMP 1200 Intro to Computing 2

ENGR 1100 Engineering Orientation 0 1st Yr Spring MATH 1620 Calculus II 4

Core History II 3

PHYS 1600 Engr Physics I 4

ENGL 1120 Written Composition II 3

ENGR 1110 Intro to Engineering 2 ( ) 2nd Yr Fall MATH 2630 Calculus III 4

PHYS 1610 Engr Physics II 4

ENGR 2050 Statics 3

ENGL 2200 Great Books I 3

PHIL 1020 Intro to Ethics 3 2nd Yr Spring MATH 2650 Linear Diff Eqns 3

ENGR 2070 Mechanics of Materials 3

ENGR 2010 Thermodynamics 3

AERO 2200 Aero Fundamentals 2

Core Social Science I 3

ENGL 2210 Great Books II 3

36

Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)

(Aerospace Engineering)

Category (Credit Hours)

Year; Semester Course

(Department, Number, Title)

Math & Basic

Science

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design ( )

General Education Other

AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I 3

AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I 1 1 ( )

ENGR 2350 Dynamics 3

MATH 2660 Topics in Linear Algebra 3

ELEC 3810 Fundamentals of EE 3

3rd Yr Fall

Core Fine Arts 3

AERO 3120 Aerodynamics II 3

AERO 3130 Aerodynamics Lab 2

AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems 1 2

AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics 4

3rd Yr Spring

AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics 3

AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III 3

AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion 4 ( )

AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II 3

Design Option*I 3 ( )

4th Yr Fall

Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC 3

AERO 4630 Aero Struct Dynamics 3

AERO 4640 Aero Structures III 2

AERO 4@@0 Program Assessment 0

Design Option* II 3 ( )

Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC 3

4th Yr Spring

Core Social Science II 3

TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS 32 58 36 2 OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE

128

PERCENT OF TOTAL 25% 45% 28% 2% Totals must Minimum semester credit hours 32 hrs 48 hrs

satisfy one set Minimum percentage 25% 37.5 %

Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary

(Aerospace Engineering)

Type of Class1

Course No. Title

No. of Sectionsoffered in

Current Year Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture Laboratory Recitation Other

Summer 2003 AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals 1 7 100% AERO 3040 Elementary Meteorology* 2 16 100% ENGR 2100 Fundamentals of Mechanics 1 23 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics 1 23 100% Fall 2003 ENGR 2050 Statics 1 56 100% ENGR 2100 Fundamentals of Mechanics 2 40 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics 2 40 100% AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals 1 26 100% AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I 1 51 100% AERO 3040 Elementary Meteorology* 1 51 100% AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I 1 36 50% 50% AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III 1 42 100% AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion 1 38 75% 25% AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II 1 44 100% AERO 4710 Aircraft Design I 1 9 100% AERO 4730 Space Mission Design I 1 32 100% AERO 4970 Special Topics in AE 2 1 100% AERO 6110 Missile Aerodynamics 1 4 100% Spring 2004 ENGR 2100 Fundamentals of Mechanics 2 44 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics 2 28 100%

37

Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued)

(Aerospace Engineering)

Type of Class1

Course No. Title

No. of Sectionsoffered in

Current Year Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture Laboratory Recitation Other

AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals 1 33 100% AERO 3120 Aerodynamics II 1 42 100% AERO 3130 Aerodynamics Lab 1 42 100% AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems 1 45 100% AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics 1 40 75% 25% AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics 1 42 100% AERO 4620 Aerospace Structural Dynamics 1 41 100% AERO 4640 Aerospace Structures III 1 40 100% AERO 4720 Aircraft Design II 1 9 100% AERO 4740 Space Mission Design II 1 32 100% AERO 4970 Special Topics in AE 5 3 100% AERO 4997 Honors Thesis 1 1 100% AERO 4@@0 Program Assessment 1 38 100% AERO 6330 Applied Orbital Mechanics 1 9 100% AERO 6530 Space Propulsion 1 13 100%

* AERO 3040 was a service course for the College of Education. It is no longer being taught.

38

Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary (Aerospace Engineering)

Total Activity Distribution2Faculty Member (Name)

FT or PT (%)

Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.) FALL, 2003

Teaching Research Other3

A. Ahmed FT AERO 7100, 3 cr.; ENGR 2100, 3 cr.; 50 50

R. Barrett FT Professional Improvement Leave 100

J. Burkhalter FT AERO 3110, 3 cr.; AERO 6110, 3 cr.; 60 40

D. Cicci FT AERO 7340 (AERO 7346), 3 cr.; ENGR 2350, 3 cr. 60 25

J. Cochran FT AERO 4710, 3 cr.; AERO 7220 (AERO 7226), 3 cr. 60 20 20 admin

W. Foster FT AERO 4620, 3 cr.; AERO 7620, 3 cr.; AERO 7626, 3 cr. 80 20

R. Gross FT AERO 3610, 2 cr.; ENGR 2100, 3 cr. 60 40 admin

R. Hartfield FT AERO 4510, 3 cr.; AERO 7510, 3 cr. 60 40

R. Jenkins FT AERO 2200, 2 cr.; AERO 7520, 3 cr. 50 50

C. Roy FT AERO 4140, 3 cr. 25 75

1. Indicate Term and Year for which data apply. 2. Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Faculty member’s activities should total 100%. 3. Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."

39

1. Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary

(Aerospace Engineering) (continued)

Total Activity Distribution2Faculty Member (Name)

FT or PT (%)

Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.) SPRING, 2004

Teaching Research Other3

A. Ahmed FT AERO 3130, 2 cr.; AERO 2200, 2 cr. 40 60

R. Barrett FT Professional Improvement Leave 100

J. Burkhalter FT AERO 3120, 3 cr.; AERO 6330, 3 cr. 60 40

D. Cicci FT AERO 3310, 3 cr., AERO 7340, 3 cr. 60 40

J. Cochran FT AERO 3220, 3 cr.; AERO 3230, 4 cr. 50 33 17 admin

W. Foster FT AERO 4630, 3 cr.; AERO 4640, 2 cr.; AERO 7630, 3 cr. 70 30

R. Gross FT ENGR 1110, 2 cr.; ENGR 2100, 3 cr.; AERO 4@@0, 0 cr. 50 50 admin

R. Hartfield FT ENGR 2350, 3 cr.; ENGR 2350 (2 sections), cr. 3 54 46

R. Jenkins FT AERO 6530 , 3 cr. 35 50 15 admin

C. Roy FT AERO 4970, 4 students; AERO 7970, 14 students 60 40

1. Indicate Term and Year for which data apply. 2. Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Faculty member’s activities should total 100%. 3. Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."

40

Table I-4. Faculty Analysis

(Aerospace Engineering) Level of Activity Years of Experience (high, med, low, none)

Name Ran

k

FT

or P

T

Hig

hest

Deg

ree

Inst

itutio

n fr

om

whi

ch H

ighe

st

Ea

This

tahi

tere

d

Deg

ree

rned

&

Ste

in w

ch

Tot

al F

acul

ty

Reg

is

Yea

r

Gov

./ In

dust

ry

Pra

ctic

e

Inst

itutio

n P

rofe

ssio

nal

Soc

iety

(

Indi

cate

S

ocie

ty)

Res

earc

h

Con

sulti

ng/,

Sum

mer

W

ork

in In

dust

ry

Ahmed, A Assoc. FT Ph.D Wichita State University 18 6 Kan. AIAA

High Low

Barrett, R. Assoc. FT Ph.D Univ. of Kansas, 1993 6 11 AIAA High Low

Burkhalter, J. Prof. FT Ph.D Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1972 36 36 Ala. AIAA High

Medium

Cicci, D. Prof. FT Ph.D Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1987 9 17 17 Penn.

Ala., AAS, AIAA, ASME Medium Medium

Cochran, J. Prof. FT Ph.D

Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1970

36

36

Ala.

AAS, AIAA, AHS, NSPE, ASEE, SAE

Medium

Medium

Foster, W. Prof. FT Ph.D Auburn University, 1974 1.5 30 30 Ala., Fla. AIAA High Medium

Gross, R. Assoc. FT Ph.D Clemson, 1988 7 14 14 None AIAA Medium Low

Hartfield, R. Assoc. FT Ph.D Univ. of Va., 1991 14 14 None AIAA Medium Medium

Jenkins, R. Assoc. FT Ph.D Purdue Univ., 1969 10 26 19 Ala AIAA High Medium

Roy, C. Assist. FT Ph.D N.C. State Univ., 1998 5 1 1 None AIAA High Medium AIAA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; AAS, American Astronomical Society; AHS, American Helicopter Society; NSPE, National Society Professional Engineers; ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education; ASME, American Society Mechanical Engineers

41

46

Table I-5. Support Expenditures

(Aerospace Engineering)

1 2 3 4 Fiscal Year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Expenditure Category

Operations1

(not including staff) 41,562

44,315 45,000 48,000

Travel2 18,403 30,660 25,000 25,000

Equipment3

103,555

99,089

14,000

80,000

Institutional Funds 3,555

22,246 14,000 20,000

Grants and Gifts4 100,000 76,843 - 60,000

Graduate Teaching Assistants(State Allocation)

85,558

105,656

120,000

125,000

Part-time Assistance5

(other than teaching) 768 1,465 955 1,200

Instructions: Report data for the engineering program being evaluated. Updated tables are to be provided at the time of the visit.

Column 1: Provide the statistics from the audited account for the fiscal year completed 2 years prior to the current fiscal year.

Column 2: Provide the statistics from the audited account for the fiscal year completed prior to your current fiscal year.

Column 3: This is your current fiscal year (when you will be preparing these statistics). Provide your preliminary estimate of annual expenditures, since your current fiscal year presumably is not over at this point.

Column 4: Provide the budgeted amounts for your next fiscal year to cover the fall term when the ABET team will arrive on campus.

Notes: 1. General operating expenses to be included here.

2. Institutionally sponsored, excluding special program grants. 3. Major equipment, excluding equipment primarily used for research. Note that the expenditures

under “Equipment” should total the expenditures for Equipment. If they don’t, please explain. 4. Including special (not part of institution’s annual appropriation) non-recurring equipment

purchase programs. 5. Do not include graduate teaching and research assistant or permanent part-time personnel.

47

Appendix I (continued)

B. Course Syllabi AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals (Required) Introduction to the fundamental physical concepts required for the successful design of aircraft and spacecraft. (Lec.1, Lab.3, 2C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Jenkins, R., Ahmed, A.

Text(s): Interactive Aerospace Engineering and Design, Newman, D., McGraw Hill series in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering, 2002. Also, class notes.

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent

Fluid properties 10

Fluid Statics 15

Fluids in motion 15

Aerodynamics 20

Propulsion 10

Equation of Rocketry 5

Aircraft performance 25

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by R. Jenkins, 3/18/2004

48

Course Number: 2200 Course Name: Aerospace FundamentalsABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Introduction to application of mathematics and physics to engineering problem solving, modeling, and simulation

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Introduction to problem solving techniques for engineers. Introduction to the concept that not all engineering problems are simply posed, and that engineering assumptions must sometimes be made

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Class discussion and participation is encouraged

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

49

AERO 3040 Elementary Meteorology (Service) Basic principles, causes, effects and phenomena of weather with fundamental techniques of forecasting. Pre., Sophomore standing, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross

Text: Meteorology: The Atmosphere and Science of Weather, J. M. Moran.

Topics Percent 1. Atmosphere 5 2. Radiation 10 3. Heat and Temperature 10 4. Heat Imbalances and Weather 10 5. Air Pressure 5 6. Humidity and Stability 5 7. Dew, Frost, Fog and Clouds 10 8. Precipitation 15 9. The Winds 10 10. Lightening 5 11. Tornadoes and Hurricanes 5 12. Forecasting Radars and Satellites 10 ____ 100

Contribution to Professional Component: Math & Basic Sciences, 3 credits

Prepared by R. S. Gross, 05/20/04

50

AERO 3110 AERODYNAMICS I (Required) Properties of fluids, fluid statics, conservation of mass and momentum, atmospheric properties, two dimensional airfoils, three dimensional wings, drag, and flight performance. Pr: Math 2650, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Burkhalter

Text: John D. Anderson, Jr., Modern Compressible Flow, 2nd Edition, 1990

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent 1. Review 5

Bernoulli’s Equation

Conservation Equations

2. Stream Function and Continuity 10

3. Velocity Potential 5

4. Vorticity and Circulation 5

5. Superposition of Flows 15

Sources and sinks

Doublets

Circular Cylinder

Lift and Kutta Joukowski Theorem

6. Airfoil Characteristics 10

Geometry

Coefficients

Camber Effects

7. Two Dimensional Airfoil Aerodynamics 25

Vortex Sheet

Cambered Airfoil

Panel Methods

8. Finite (3-D) Wings 25

Lifting Line Theory

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by J. E. Burkhalter 02/03/2004

51

Course Number: 3110 Course Name: Aerodynamics IABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of calculus, physics, engineering mechanics to the prediction of lift, drag, and pitching moment on lifting shapes.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

The material covered in this course will be used in two later lab courses where wind tunnel and other experiments will be used to examine aero- and hydro-dynamics principles.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

This course will include design-related assignments related to aerodynamics and the design of wings and lifting bodies.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

A primary goal of the course is to teach the students to identify and solve aerodynamics and fluid mechanics problems.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Ethics are stressed in requirements related to course assignments.

g. An ability to communicate effectively.

At least one major design related project in the course requires significant writing and possibly an in-class oral presentation.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Teaching in the course includes discussion of changes in the field over the years and thus seeks to emphasize the need to continually keep up with new developments in aerodynamics.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Current applications and developments in the field are discussed and materials are often related to professor's current research programs.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

State of the art aerodynamic computer codes and techniques are discussed.

52

AERO 3120 COMPRESSIBLE AERODYNAMICS (Required)

Principles of compressible flow including flows with area changes, friction, and heat transfer. Fundamental analysis of aerodynamics and potential flow theory. Correlation of potential flow theory with experimental data. Pr: AERO 3110, ENGR 2010. (Lec.3, 3C).

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Burkhalter

Text: John D. Anderson, Jr., Modern Compressible Flow, 2nd Edition, 1990

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent1. Introduction to Compressible Flow 3

2. Review of Thermodynamics 5

3. Integral form of the Conservation Equations 6

4. One-Dimensional Steady Flow with Area Variations 20

Conservation Equations

Stagnation and Critical Quantities

Area-Velocity Relation

Normal Shock Waves

Rankine-Hugoniot Relations

5. One-Dimensional Flow with Heat Addition 5

6. One-Dimensional Flow with Friction 4

7. Two-Dimensional Steady Flow 20

Isentropic Compressions and Expansions

Prandtl Meyer function

Oblique Shock Waves

Shock Reflections and Interactions

Wave Interactions in Jets

8. Lift and Drag in Supersonic Flow 7

9. Conical Shock waves 3

10. Differential Forms of the Conservation Equations 6

11. Solution of the Differential Forms 12

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by J. E. Burkhalter 02/03/2004

53

Course Number: 3120 Course Name: Compressible Aerodynamics ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of calculus, physics, engineering mechanics to the solution of fluid flow problems involving compressibility

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Concepts covered in this course are used in Aero courses where super-sonic wind tunnel experiments are performed.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Students learn about supersonic engine intake and engine nozzle design and constraints. They are also required to analyze and design supersonic airfoils and nozzles.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

A primary purpose of this course is to teach the students how to solve engineering problems involving compressible flow.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Ethics are stressed in this course through requirements related to course assignments.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Students are encouraged and, on occasion, required to interact orally in class. Coherent written explanations are required in some assignments.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

The broader context of compressible aerodynamics in relation to commercial, military and government operations continually referenced.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

The historical and development of the subject is discussed, in particular the importance that an up-to-date expertise played in pioneering advancements in the subject.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Examples related to current technology are used throughout the course.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

This course provides the basic scientific background necessary for the effective use of the modern computational tools and experimental methods found in areas of engineering practice related to compressible flow.

54

AERO 3130 AERODYNAMICS LABORATORY (Required) Application of fundamental aerodynamic principles to subsonic and supersonic wind tunnel experiments. Pre: AERO 3110, (Lec.1, Lab.3, 2C).

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Ahmed

Text: Rae, W. H., and Pope, A., “Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing,” 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

Syllabus:

A. Lectures: 1. Introduction 2. Technical Report Writing 3. Dimensional Analysis 4. Error Analysis 5. Data Analysis 6. Airspeed Measurement 7. Thermal Anemometry 8. Laser Doppler Velocimetry and Particle Image Velocimetry 9. Pressure Measurement 10. Flow Visualization

B. Laboratory Percent1. Experiment Design – Essential Tools for laboratory 10

2. Pressure Transducer Working and Calibration 10

3. Pressure and Velocity Measurement in a Turbulent Jet 10

4. Drag of Spheres 10

5. Schlieren and Shadowgraphs 10

6. Boundary Layer over a flat plate 10

7. Lift and Drag from Pressure Distribution (NACA 0012 airfoil) 10

8. Airfoil Drag from Momentum Deficit 10

8. Electrical analogy for Streamlines and Potential Lines 5

9. Constant Temperature Anemometer 10

9. Smoke Tunnel (Flow Visualization) 5

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 2 credits

Prepared by A. Ahmed, 5/2004

55

Course Number: 3130 Course Name: Aerodynamics Laboratory ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Both integral and differential calculus, and algebraic and numerical tools are used in conjunction with engineering principles during the calibrations, potential flow analogs, and wake momentum deficits as well as the calculation of integral quantities of boundary layers for example.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

A large part of the report submitted after the experiment relates to analysis and interpretation of results in an orderly and factual manner. Students themselves do most of the experimental setups described in the lab manual.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

A mini project assigned to the students towards the end of a term gives them ample opportunities to demonstrate the application of measurement principles and techniques. The process is goal oriented.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

All experiments conducted during this class are different and relate to different situations and have strong multi-disciplinary analytical and applied contents.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Optical setups and wind tunnel testing reinforces ability to identify and formulate practical approaches to solve similar engineering problem.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Trusting students with very expensive equipment to work with limited supervision, and access to labs during after hours and/or over the weekends reinforces the professional trust, responsibility and ethical conduct.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

60% of the grade depends on the effective report writing and a full lecture session is devoted to report writing. Communication skills and teamwork are emphasized further refined since lab experiments are conducted in a group setting.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

The variety of experiments conducted in this class ensures a wide spectrum of applications of fundamentals of science and engineering. The fundamentals, by definition, are global in nature.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Most of the measurement techniques discussed, described and used are traditional in nature. These techniques are “reinvented” with a newer touch to elaborate the importance of basic knowledge and its application independent of temporal constraints.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

The curriculum is applications oriented and therefore new developments are always discussed along with new techniques adaptable to analyze complex engineering problems.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

MatLab, MS Excel, and other tools are used for data reduction and analysis. Data acquisition software such as the Nation Instruments LabView is used in 60% of the experiments.

56

AERO 3220 AEROSPACE SYSTEMS (Required) Modeling of system elements, classical feedback control techniques used in the analysis of linear systems, analysis of systems undergoing various motions connected with flight. Pre: ENGR 2350, MATH 2650. (Lec.3, 3C).

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Cochran

Text: Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering, 4th Edition

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent1. Introduction 7

2. Mechanical systems 21

3. Single DOF Systems 14

4. Thermal and Electrical Systems 14

5. (2) DOF Systems 14

6. Frequency Response 14

7. Control, Transfer Functions, Block diagrams, Closed Loop System 16

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by John E. Cochran, Jr. 3/3/2004

57

Course Number: 3220 Course Name: AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Student should be able to develop mathematical models of linear mechanical systems based on Newton's laws, develop simple mechanical components (e.g. Hooke's Law springs) and analyze the response of simple, time-invariant linear ODE's to simple inputs (step, ramp, harmonics).

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Students do a small design exercise, such as developing a simple 2DOF landing gear model, enumerating several reasonable design specifications and determining if a nominal design meets them.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Design exercise specifications are selected and justified by the student.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Ethical responsibility is required by the Honor Code.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Students are expected to document software programs and solutions.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Recent developments in smart structures, using adaptive components, are described. Models include electro-theological fluid dampers.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Space applications of advanced materials and structures are noted.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The students use MATLAB to analyze systems and present results.

58

AERO 3230 FLIGHT DYNAMICS (Required) Airplane performance and stability and control including analytical prediction of performance characteristics, experimental determination of static stability parameters, and analytical prediction of dynamic stability characteristics. Pr: AERO 3110, ENGR 2350, MATH 2650. (Lec.3, Lab.3, 4C).

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Cochran

Text: Etkin & Reid, Dynamics of Flight - Stability and Control, 3rd Edition

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent1. Longitudinal Flight

a. Static Stability and Control 10

i. Stick fixed stability and neutral point

ii. Longitudinal Control

iii. Stick free stability and neutral point

b. Maneuvering Flight 10

i. Stick force and elevator angle /g

ii. Stick force gradient

iii. Stick fixed and free maneuver point

2. Lateral-directional Flight 15

a. Stick fixed and free directional stability

b. Lateral stability

c. Maneuvering flight

3. Estimation of aerodynamic parameters 15

a. Longitudinal derivatives

b. lateral-directional derivatives

4. Equations of motion 10

5. Linearizing equations 10

6. Dynamic stability 20

7. Flying Qualities 10

_____ 100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by John E. Cochran, Jr. 3/3/2004

59

Course Number: 3230 Course Name: FLIGHT DYNAMICS ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of Newton's laws to predicting aircraft dynamics and control. Including the use of differential equations, Vibrations to describe characteristics and modes of flight.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

The material in this course is used in a later lab where the dynamics of an aircraft pinned in a wind tunnel is measured and analyzed.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

One emphasis of the course is to be able to determine the effects of design changes on the aerodynamic and stability characteristics. Also control surface sizing is discussed.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Part of the focus of this course is to teach students to make engineering judgments, assumptions, and estimations.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

The Honor Code is in effect at all times. Examples of conflicts between manufacturer and customer are given throughout the course.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Some tests and homework questions ask the student to describe points of interest in layman's terms.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Some examples of international aircraft design characteristics are discussed.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Some discussion of past and current areas of concern and controversy are brought into the classroom indicating how things change over time.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

The design process requires knowledge of contemporary issues by using contemporary design problems.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Computer codes are being developed to be used with the course and to be used later for design.

60

AERO 3310 ORBITAL MECHANICS (Required) Geometry of the solar system and orbital motion, mathematical integrals of motion, detailed analysis of two-body dynamics and introduction to artificial satellite orbits; Hohmann transfer and patched conics for lunar and interplanetary trajectories. Pre: ENGR 2350, MATH 2650 (Lec.3, 3C).

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci

Text: Orbital Mechanics, Third Edition, Chobotov, AIAA Education Series, 2002.

SYLLABUS:

Topic PercentHistorical Background 5

Geometry of the Solar System 10

Formulation of the Two-Body Problem 30

Conic Sections 10

Orbital Geometry 15

Orbital Transfers 10

Interplanetary Trajectories 20

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by David A. Cicci, 3/1/04

61

Course Number: 3310 Course Name: Orbital Mechanics ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Application of calculus, physics, differential equations, and dynamics to the analysis of two-body orbital motion.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Use of orbital data to identify the satellite type and define its orbit.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Mission analysis and planning for orbit transfers and interplanetary trajectories.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Analysis and solution of specific problems in the orbital motion of spacecraft.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

A number of homework assignments are made throughout the course which requires effective communication and a clear description of the problem solutions.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Historical background of the subject matter is covered along with discussion of the latest contributions, such as current satellites and satellite systems and the technological advances which result.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Current events are used to demonstrate application of the topics covered in the course.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Simple formulas, algorithms, and software tools are used by students in analyzing orbital mechanics problems.

62

AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures Laboratory I (Required) Fundamental concepts employed in the mechanical testing of engineering materials and structures. Load, stress and strain measurement techniques are utilized to determine material properties and structural response. Pr., ENGR 2070, (Lec.1, Lab.3, 2C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross

Text: Spiral Bound Collection of Textbook Excerpts

SYLLABUS

Topic PercentOptimal Weight Design for Structural Members 35 Subjected to Axial and Bending Loads

2-D Structural Analysis Software 5

Global Buckling of Axial Loaded Members 10

Local Buckling of Thin-Walled Axial Loaded Members 5

Material Structure (Metals) 10

Mechanical Properties of Metals 10

Basic Statistics 5

Aluminum Nomenclature and Properties 20

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 2 credits

Prepared by S. Gross, 4/17/04

63

Course Number: 3610 Course Name: Aerospace Structures IABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Significant use of hand and computer-assisted calculations to predict structural behavior. Proficiency is measured by homework, exam and project assignments.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Experimentally derived material properties and column buckling equations are employed in the optimal-weight design project. The optimal-weight design structure is experimentally evaluated to compare with theoretical predictions.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

An optimal-weight structure is designed, manufactured and tested during the course.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

The students are divided up into small groups (3-4 students) to design, manufacture and test an optimal-weight structure.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Geometric and performance specifications are provided for the optimal-weight structure and the students need to progress through the design and manufacturing processes with limited instructor assistance.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Several engineering case-studies involving ethical questions are discussed in the course.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Peer grades are given within each group to stress the importance of clear communication. Interaction during all phases of the optimal-weight project points to the importance of group communication. A short oral presentation is made by each group to the other students prior to the testing of each structure.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Exposure to both traditional manual structural analysis techniques and structural analysis software.

64

AERO 4@@0: Program Assessment (Required) Academic program assessment covering the areas of aerodynamics, aerospace structures, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion. Pre. Senior standing, (Lec.1, 0C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross

Text: Not Applicable

Prepared by S. Gross, 4/17/04

65

AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III (Required) Theoretical background essential to a fundamental understanding of laminar and turbulent boundary layers and their relations to skin friction and heat transfer. Pre., AERO 3120, (Lec.3, 3C) Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Roy

Textbook: J. A. Schetz, Foundations of Boundary Layer Theory, Prentice Hall, 1984

Topics PercentIntroduction to viscous flows 5 Review of thermodynamics and potential flow 5 Integral equations for laminar boundary layers (BLs) 10 Differential equations for laminar BLs 10 Exact solutions to the incompressible BL equations 10 Numerical solution to the incompressible laminar BL equations 10 Compressible laminar BLs 10 Transition from laminar to turbulent flow 5 Turbulent BL flow 10 Numerical solution to the turbulent BL equations 10 Compressible turbulent BLs 10 Free shear flows 5 ____ 100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 3 credits

Prepared by c. Roy, 4/17/04

66

Course Number: 4140 Course Name: Aerodynamics IIIABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Physical and mathematical analysis of the governing equations for fluid flow as applied to boundary layers to determine viscous drag and heat transfer.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Course includes the incorporation of empirical data in the calibration/validation of physical models.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Homework and projects to develop and apply techniques for evaluating the viscous aerodynamics of external and internal flows.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Group projects to write a boundary layer code for viscous aerodynamic analysis.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Homework problems in viscous flow analysis.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Group projects to write a boundary layer code for viscous aerodynamic analysis.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Course involves both early theoretical boundary layer analysis as well as state-of-the-art boundary layer analysis methods using digital computers.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Course emphasizes basic mathematics and empirical analysis as well as modern computational techniques in boundary layer analysis.

67

AERO 4510 - Aerospace Propulsion (Required) Fundamental analysis of airbreathing jet propulsion. Introduction to chemical rocket propulsion. Pr., AERO 3120. (Lec.3, Lab.3, 4C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Hartfield Text: Mattingly, Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1996. Topic Percent 1. Aerothermodynamics 10 a. Conservation Laws b. Thermodynamics of Gases c. Introduction to Equilibrium Combustion Thermodynamics 2. One-Dimensional Flow of a Perfect Gas 10 3. Performance Parameters 15 4. Thermodynamics of Air-Breathing Engines 40 a. Thrust and Efficiency, Specific Fuel Consumption b. The Ramjet c. The Turbojet d. The Turbofan 5. Component Analysis 25 ____ 100 Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 4 credits Prepared by Roy Hartfield

68

Course Number: 4510 Course Name: _Aerospace Propulsion___ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

The application of fundamental knowledge of thermodynamics, aerodynamics, dynamics and materials is required in this course.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

This course has some laboratory content. Currently, the laboratory involves exploring nozzle flow. A gas turbine minilab is being purchased to allow the students to explore the principles of the Brayton cycle and of the turbojet.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

This course contains an extensive preliminary design project that starts near the beginning of the course with a turbojet analysis development and builds throughout the course, culminating with an assignment to design a high-bypass ratio turbofan with a mixer duct for a given application. The design criteria involve meeting some specific specifications including thrust and TSFC.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

The laboratories are conducted in teams and a specific ability to work with others is required and is loosely included in the evaluation process.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Particular emphasis is placed on correctly identifying and formulating the gas-turbine-based propulsion problem, including all of the factors that affect the performance of the turbojet/turbofan engine.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Discussion of environmental, ethical and professional issues is scattered throughout the course, mainly via example problems.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Active participation of students in class discussions is encouraged. Additionally, laboratory projects and a write up describing the design project are required to be presented in a written formal format.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Important historical events, engineering developments, and engineering failures are included in example problems presented throughout the course. Additionally, in this course, the environmental effects of jet propulsion using hydrocarbon fuels are explored in some detail.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Students see how the analysis techniques presented in the propulsion course have evolved and have been used to solve problems throughout the history of gas turbine and jet-propulsion engineering development. This illustrates the need to continually update the knowledge base for the practicing engineer.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Some of the current issues facing developers of modern turbofan propulsions systems include: noise abatement, emission control, thermal efficiency, thrust-to-weight ratios driven by turbine inlet temperatures and thrust vectoring. All of these contemporary issues and several others are discussed in the course.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Problems requiring the use of advanced calculators and computer programming techniques are prevalent throughout the course and the project which threads its way through the entire course is basically the development of a computer model for the turbofan engine.

69

AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II (Required) Aircraft and space vehicle structures. An introduction to the finite element method and its application to structural analysis. Pre: AERO 3610, MATH 2660 (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster

Text: A First Course in the Finite Element Method, 3rd edition, Daryl L. Logan,

Brookes/Cole, 2002.

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent Review of Matrix Operations and Linear Algebra 10

Introduction to the Stiffness Method 25

One-Dimensional Element Analysis (rods and beams) 25

Two-Dimensional Element Analysis (plane stress and plane strain) 20

Solving Problems with MSC/NASTRAN 20

____ 100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by W. A. Foster, 4/17/04

70

Course Number: 4620 Course Name: Aerospace Structures IIABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of calculus, ODE’s, PE’s, linear algebra and engineering mechanics to solve structural problems using the finite element method.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Students are given open ended assignments which are required to meet a specific engineering requirement(s). The finite element is presented as one component of the overall engineering process. The necessary interaction with other disciplines is discussed.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Students are allowed to team and compete on some of the larger problems and projects.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Virtually all assignments require the identification of the requirement(s) and the formulation and solution of engineering problems. An organized approach to problem solving is presented and its use in solving problems is encouraged.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Students are reminded on a regular basis of their responsibility to submit work that represents only their work or the work of their team.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Students present written and sometimes oral reports regarding the results of their analyses.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

An historical background of the finite element method is presented and the rapid changes taking place in the utilization of the finite element method due to improvements in software and hardware available for computational methods is discussed.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Students are instructed in the use of a state of the art structural analysis tool, MSC/NASTRAN, and are required to use this tool to solve certain problems.

71

AERO 4630 Aerospace Structural Dynamics (Required) Free, forced and damped vibration of single and multiple degree-of-freedom systems.

Introduction to flutter theory and aeroelasticity. Pre: AERO 4620 (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster

Text: Fundamentals of Vibrations, Meirovitch, L., McGraw-Hill, 2001.

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent Review of Basic Concepts of Engineering Dynamics 20

Response of Single Degree of Freedom Systems to Initial Excitations 25

Response of Single Degree of Freedom Systems to Harmonic Excitations 25

Two Degree of Freedom Systems (Normal Modes Analysis) 15

Vibration of Continuous Systems 15

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by W. A. Foster, 3/20/04

72

Course Number: 4630 Course Name: Aerospace Structural DynamicsABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engi-neering

Application of calculus, ODE’s and PDE’s to solve initial value and eigenvalue problems in dynamic systems.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Students are given open ended assignments which are required to meet a specific engineering requirement(s).

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Students are allowed to team and compete on some of the larger problems and projects.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Virtually all assignments require the identification of the requirement(s) and the formulation and solution of engineering problems.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Students are reminded on a regular basis of their responsibility to submit work that represents only their work or the work of their team.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Students present written homework assignments. A portion of their homework grade is dependent on how well they show the details of their solutions.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

MSC/NASTRAN AND MATLAB are used in some of the assignments.

73

AERO 4640 Aerospace Structures III (Required) Computational methods applied to aircraft and space vehicle structural components. Pre: AERO

4620 (Lec.1, Lab.3, 2C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster

Text: Getting Started with MSC/NASTRAN, 2nd Edition, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, 1996.

Basic Tutorials in Finite Element Analysis Using MSC/PATRAN and MSC/NASTRAN, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, Los Angeles, CA.

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent Instruction in the use of MSC/PATRAN and MSC/NASTRAN is presented and laboratory type assignments are given on a more or less weekly basis. A list of typical assignments is given below. One-dimensional non-uniform bar 10

Two-dimensional truss 10

Three-dimensional truss 5

Beam analysis 10

Frame analysis 5

Thin-Wall Pressure vessel problem 5

Thick-Wall Pressure vessel problem 10

Plane stress analysis to determine stress concentration factor 5

Beam vibration (using two-dimensional elements) 10

Three-dimensional solid model 10

Weight optimization problem 5

Heat transfer problem 10

Wing bending problem 5

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 2 credits

Prepared by Foster, 3/20/04

74

Course Number: 4640 Course Name: Aerospace Structures IIIABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Students must apply their knowledge of mathematics, engineering mechanics and structural analysis to evaluate the results of their numerical calculations.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Students are required to interpret the results of their numerical solutions by comparing them to simpler analytical solutions. The students are also required to solve problems related to reducing the error in their numerical calculations.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Students are given open ended design problems, where they must design a system to meet specific engineering criteria such as an allowable stress and/or minimum weight.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Teaming is encouraged, but not required on some of the design projects. Topics covered in the assignments are multi-disciplinary.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

The finite element method is used to formulate and solve various problems in engineering mechanics and structural analysis.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Students are reminded on a regular basis of their responsibility to submit work that represents only their work or the work of their team.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Written responses explaining the applicability and validity of the results obtained from the mathematical model are required on almost every exercise.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Students are instructed in the use of a state of the art CAE tools. MSC/NASTRAN and MSC/PATRAN are used to solve various interdisciplinary problems.

75

AERO 4710 AIRCRAFT DESIGN I (Design Elective) Introduction to the principles of Class I and Class II fixed-wing aircraft design. Pre. Senior Standing, (Lec.2, Lab.3, 3C)

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Barrett

Text: Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design, Parts I-IV, DARCorporation, Lawrence, KS

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent

1. The Design Process 10

2. Aircraft History 5

3. Preliminary Aircraft Sizing 15

4. Preliminary Configuration Design 20

5. Layout 20

6. Control and Stability 5

9. Design reviews 10

10. Reports (written and oral) 15

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by John E. Cochran, Jr. 3/12/04

76

Course Number: 4710 Course Name: AIRPLANE DESIGN I ABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engineering.

The course requires an application of virtually the entire student's past mathematics, science, and engineering courses.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

When the design assignment involves building and testing a model the students must develop an experimental plan and analyze the test data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

This requirement is the essence of the course.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

The design projects we use are always team projects and the teams are both multidisciplinary and international.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Many aspects of a design involve the identification and solution of engineering problems associated with design.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Professional ethics are emphasized throughout the design process, especially as related to proper citation of information sources.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

The course requires both individual and team written reports and at least two team oral presentations.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Almost every design problem assigned must include an assessment of the design's impact (benefits and problems) on its users and society in general.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

By requiring the students to use all of their past coursework in the design process, the course emphasizes the importance of learning as a continual process.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

The design process requires knowledge of contemporary issues by using contemporary design problems.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The design process requires student use of all skills and engineering tools available to them, including computers, internet, and other resources.

77

AERO 4720 AIRCRAFT DESIGN II (Design Elective) Application of the principles of Class I and Class II fixed-wing aircraft design through construction of an actual small-scale glider. Pr: AERO 4710, (Lec.2, Lab.3, 3C).

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Barrett

Text: Course Notes

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent1. Project planning 5

2. Individual disciplinary analysis and design 30

3. Team interaction and decision making 20

4. Weekly informal design reviews with instructors

and written reports 15

5. Formal mid-term design review 5

6. Final design presentation 10

7. Final report/proposal for the AIAA or other

competition 15

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by John E. Cochran, Jr. 3/3/2004

78

Course Number: 4720 Course Name: AIRCRAFT DESIGN II ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

The course requires an application of virtually the entire student's past mathematics, science, and engineering courses.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

When the design assignment involves building and testing a model the students must develop an experimental plan and analyze the test data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

This requirement is the essence of the course.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

The design projects we use are always team projects and the teams are both multidisciplinary and international.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Many aspects of a design involve the identification and solution of engineering problems associated with design.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Professional ethics are emphasized throughout the design process, especially as related to proper citation of information sources.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

The course requires both individual and team written reports and at least two team oral presentations.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Almost every design problem assigned must include an assessment of the design's impact (benefits and problems) on its users and society in general.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

By requiring the students to use all of their past coursework in the design process, the course emphasizes the importance of learning as a continual process.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

The design process requires knowledge of contemporary issues by using contemporary design problems.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The design process requires student use of all skills and engineering tools available to them, including computers, internet, and other resources.

79

AERO 4730-4740 Space Mission Design I-II (Design Elective) Introduction to the design of space systems including the identification of launch requirements, spacecraft system components, satellite tracking and orbital analysis to achieve a stated scientific objective. Pre. Senior standing, (Lec.2, Lab.3, 3C)

Professor normally teaching the course: Jim Voss

Text: Human Spaceflight Mission Analysis and Design, W.J. Larsen and L. K. Pranke, McGraw Hill

Syllabus

Topic PercentCurrent and past human spacecraft 15

The space environment 5

Physiology of spaceflight 5

Space mission design 10

Systems engineering 5

Spacecraft systems and sub-systems 20

Space current events 5

Design teams, teamwork, collaboration 15

Presentations, individual and team 15

Research reports and team project report 5

____

100%

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 3 credits

Prepared by Jim Voss, 3/2/04

80

Course Number: 4730/4740 Course Name: Space Mission Design I-II ABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Use knowledge of calculus, physics, structural analysis, orbital mechanics, and computer aided design for the analysis of space mission profiles, spacecraft design, and spacecraft systems design.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Students calculate and use data to plan space mission profiles and design spacecraft hardware.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Individual spacecraft systems and an overall spacecraft design are completed by student design teams to meet written requirements and constraints.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Teams of 5-6 students complete designs on systems and spacecraft. They conduct a collaborative exercise with another university to develop coordination and teamwork and enhance the team experience.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Problems in space mission design are analyzed and solved. Complex trade studies are completed.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Spaceflight current events and issues are discussed in class every day including the moral and ethical issues involved with human spaceflight. Professional responsibilities and emphasized.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Students give individual and team presentations on their research and design work. They complete individual research papers and team design reports and proposals.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Systems engineering processes are an integral part of the student design team’s work. International partnerships with their engineering philosophy, historical, social, cultural and language difficulties are discussed.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Professional engineer needs and responsibilities are discussed and reinforced by guest lecturers, who demonstrate their continued education and learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Current events in space are discussed at the start of every class. Issues surrounding human spacecraft disasters are discussed. History of human spaceflight and personal experiences in spaceflight are shared with students.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Students use a variety of computer software tools for their design projects.

81

AERO 4970 Special Topics: Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) (Aero/Astro Elective) This course offers an introduction to the fundamental elements of the numerical solution to compressible and incompressible fluid flow problems. Pre., MATH 2660, AERO 3110, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching course: Roy

Textbook: J. D. Anderson, Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications, McGraw-Hill, 1995.

Topics Percent Introduction to CFD 2 Euler and Navier-Stokes governing equations 15 Mathematical behavior of PDEs 8 Discretization approaches 15 Explicit and implicit methods 8 Code verification 6 Grid generation and transformations 6 Numerical schemes for the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations 15 Analysis and presentation of CFD solutions 2 Numerical error estimation 8 Applications 15 ____ 100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 3 credits

Prepared by C. Roy, 3/2/04

82

Course Number: 4970 Course Name: Introduction to Computational Fluid DynamicsABET Criteria Application to this course a. An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Physical, mathematical, and numerical analysis of the governing equations for fluid flow to solve applied problems in computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Course includes the use of empirical data in the calibration/validation of numerical models.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

Homework and projects to develop and apply techniques for solving problems in applied fluid dynamics.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Homework problems in physical, mathematical, and numerical analysis of fluid dynamics.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Student projects in applied CFD include written reports of theory, numerical methods, numerical error analysis, and validation of computational results.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

The use of digital computers to solve problems in fluid dynamics.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Course involves both early developments in CFD analysis as well as state-of-the-art methods using digital computers.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Course emphasizes basic physics, mathematics, and empirical analysis as well as modern computational techniques in CFD analysis.

83

AERO 6330 APPLIED ORBITAL MECHANICS (Aero/Astro Elective) Special and general perturbation techniques; non-spherical Earth, atmospheric drag, and N-body perturbations; restricted three-body problem, preliminary orbit determination, ground tracks, C-W equations, targeting and rendezvous, mission planning. Pre: AERO 3310 (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci

Text: Orbital Mechanics, Third Edition, Chobotov, AIAA Education Series, 2002.

SYLLABUS:

Topic PercentOrbital Mechanics Review 5

Special Perturbation Techniques 25

General Perturbation Techniques 15

Non-Spherical Earth Perturbations 15

Atmospheric Drag 5

N-Body Perturbations 10

Restricted Three-Body Problem 15

Ground Tracks and Mission Planning 10

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits

Prepared by David A. Cicci, 3/1/04

84

Course Number: 6330 Course Name: Applied Orbital Mechanics ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Application of calculus, physics, ordinary and partial differential equations, and dynamics to the analysis of two-body orbital motion.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

A large computer program is written to calculate and analyze the motion of a satellite under the influence of a variety of perturbations. The effects of the perturbations on the orbital elements are analyzed graphical display.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Solution and analysis of specific perturbation effects on the orbital motion of spacecraft.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

A number of homework assignments and the writing of a large computer program are completed throughout the course which require effective communication and a clear description of the problem solutions.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

Recent advances in the subject matter is covered along with discussion of the latest technological contributions and their effects on the state-of-the-art.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Current events are used to demonstrate application of the topics covered in the course.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Simple formulas, algorithms, computer programs, and commercial software tools are used by students in analyzing orbital mechanics problems.

85

AERO 6520 Rocket Propulsion (Aero/Astro Elective) Analysis of the thermodynamics, gas dynamics and design of liquid and solid propellant rocket engines. Pre. AERO 4510, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Jenkins, R., Hartfield, R.

Text(s): Rocket Propulsion Elements, an Introduction to the Engineering of Rockets, 6th edition Sutton, G.P., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992 . Also, class lecture notes.

SYLLABUS:

Topic PercentFundamentals of chemical rocket propulsion 5

Generic thermodynamics and gas dynamics of chemical rockets 15

Liquid rocket engine components / systems 15

Liquid rocket propellants and combustion 15

Thrust-time curves for solid motors 2

Propellant burning in solid motors 8

Transient performance in solid motors 5

Geometry of grain design, internal ballistics 25

Optimization of motor design for a specified mission 10

____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by R. Jenkins, 3/1/2004

86

Course Number: 6520 Course Name: Rocket PropulsionABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of thermodynamics, gas dynamics, chemistry, physics, and mathematical modeling to analysis of chemical rocket propulsion systems

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

An introduction to design of components and overall systems is included. An introduction to solid rocket motor grain optimization using genetic algorithms is included.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

The primary goal of the course is to help the student identify major engineering trade-offs encountered in chemical rocket propulsion

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Class discussion and participation is encouraged

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues

Current national and international activities are discussed

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

State-of –the-art optimization techniques such as genetic algorithms are introduced to the student

87

AERO 6530 Space Propulsion (Aero/Astro Elective) Analysis of space propulsion systems. Dynamics of electromagnetic systems, ion engines, photon drives, laser propulsion. Pre. AERO 4510, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor normally teaching the course: Jenkins

Reference: Hill, P., and Peterson, C., Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion, 2nd Edition, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1992.

Text: Lecture Notes

SYLLABUS:

Topic PercentClassification of Electric Propulsion Systems 10

Components of space propulsion systems 4

Optimization of Propulsion Systems with Separate Power Source 30

Dynamics of Electric Propulsion Systems 12

Design of the Ion Motor 25

Power Sources 9

“Star Trek” (Advanced Systems) 10

___

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by R. Jenkins, 3/1/2004

88

Course Number: 6530 Course Name: Space PropulsionABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Application of thermodynamics, physics, calculus, and dynamics to analysis of spacecraft propulsion systems with separate powerplants

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

An introduction to overall system optimization for specified mission constraints; an introduction to design of an ion engine to meet specified mission constraints

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

The primary goal of the course is to help the student identify major engineering trade-offs encountered in spacecraft propulsion

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively

Class discussion and participation is encouraged

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues

Current NASA activities are discussed

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

89

AERO 6630 Aerospace Applications of Composite Materials (Aero/Astro Elective)

Basic material and manufacturing information for laminated composite structures. Computational structural analysis of typical aerospace composite structures coupled with experimental verification of the structural response. Pr., AERO 3610, (Lec.3, Lab.3, 4C)

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross

Text: Composite Airframe Structures, Niu, 1992

SYLLABUS Topic PercentAdvanced Fiber and Matrix Materials 20

Manufacturing Methods 20

Engineering Properties of an Angle Lamina 10

Strength Theories of an Angle Lamina 10

Macromechanical Analysis of Laminates 20

Finite-Element Modeling of Composite Structures 20

_____

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 4 credits

Prepared by R. Gross, 4/17/04

90

Course Number: 6630 Course Name: Aero Composite MaterialsABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

Significant use of hand and computer-assisted calculations to predict structural behavior. Proficiency is measured by homework, exam and project assignments.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Students are required to produce theoretical strain data to compare with given experimental data and explain any differences.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Projects and homework is assigned to the students.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Discussed within the course, but not assessed

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Exposure to both traditional manual structural analysis techniques and structural analysis software.

91

AERO 6750 LEGAL ASPECTS OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE (Aero/Astro Elective)

Introduction to the principles of civil law and it relationship to engineering, including professional responsibility and ethics. Pre., Senior Standing, (Lec.3, 3C)

Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Cochran

Text: Sweet, Justin, Legal Asp Sweet, Justin, Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering, and the Construction Process, Fifth Edition, 1994.

SYLLABUS:

Topic Percent

1. The American Legal System 10

2. Forms of Association 10

3. Agency 5

4. Contacts 20

5. Torts 15

6. Products Liability 15

9. Property 10

10. Ethics and Professional Responsibility 15

100

Contribution to Professional Component: Engineering Topics, 3 credits Prepared by John E. Cochran, Jr. 4/12/04

92

Course Number: 6750 Course Name: Legal Aspects of Engineering Practice ABET Criteria Application to this course

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engi-neering.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Approximately 15% of this course is designed to provide the student with an understanding of codes of the professional responsibility and ethics including those codified in state statutes and those adopted by NSPE, AIAA and other professional organizations.

g. An ability to communicate effec-tively

Student s are required to conduct research and write a short paper on a topic that involves interaction of engineering and the law. Example: Products Liability

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Approximately 85% of this course deals with the civil law of the United States, including contracts, forms of business enterprises, real property, and torts.

i. Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning.

This course provides examples of the how our society and its governing laws change and how some changes affect the engineering profession. Hence, it provides motivation for life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary is-sues

Current engineering legal issues are discussed.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

93

C. Faculty Resumes

ANWAR AHMED Associate Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Building, Auburn University, AL 36849 Phone: (334) 844-6817, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: aahmed@eng.auburn.edu

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 6

• 1998 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1995 - 1998: Associate Professor/Director, Aerospace Program, Mechanical Engineering, Southern

University • 1987-1994: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Texas A & M University • 1985 - 1987: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Science Engineering, Tuskegee University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1989 - Present: American Physical Society • 1985 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• 1999 - Present: Member, Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

• 1998 - Present: Faculty Advisor, - Sigma Gamma Tau, Auburn University

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 1998: Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Elected through nomination • 1996: Excellence in Research Award - US Air Force Academy, CO. • 1992: Visiting Scholar - NASA/ICASE, NASA Langley Research Center. • 1992: Ralph E. Teetor Outstanding Educator Award - Society of Automotive Engineers. • 1983: Pi Mu Epsilon, Mathematics Society - Wichita State University, KS.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Ahmed, A., and Bangash, Z. A.,, "Axi-Symmetric Coaxial Synthetic Jets", AIAA Paper No. 2002-0269, 40th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 2002.

• Khan, M. J., and Ahmed, A.,, "On the Juncture Vortex in the Transverse Planes", AIAA Paper No. 2002-0163, 40th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 2002.

• Khan, M. J., and Ahmed, A.,, "Influence of Aspect Ratio on the Dynamic Character if End-Wall Flow", 1st International Conference on Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and Thermodynamics, Kruger Park, SA, Apr. 2002.

• Ahmed, A.,, "Flow Field of a Curved Cylinder", AIAA Paper No. 2001-0602, 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 2001.

• Khan, M. J., and Ahmed, A.,, "Vorticity and its Transport in Juncture Flow", AIAA Paper No. 2001-2479, 19th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Anaheim, CA, Jun. 2001.

• Ahmed, A., and Bangash, Z. A.,, "Bifurcation and Connectivity in a Synthetic Jet Vortex Train", AIAA Paper No. 2001-3031, 31st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Anaheim, CA, Jun. 2001.

94

• Ahmed, A., Wissler, J., and Hartfield, R. J.,, "Experiments on Laser Beam Propagation through Incompressible and Compressible Flow Regimes", AIAA Paper No. 2000-2352, 31st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference, Denver, CO, Jun. 2000.

• Ahmed, A., Khan, M. j., and Varella, E.,, "Subsonic Drag Reduction of Space Shuttle Orbiter Using Passive Wake Modification Devices", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp 84-88, Jan. 1995.

• Khan, M. J., Ahmed, A., and Trosper, R. J.,, "On the dynamics of the Juncture Vortex", AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 1273-1278, Jul. 1995.

• Bandyopadhyay, P., and Ahmed, A., "Turbulent Boundary Layer Subjected to Multiple Curvatures and Pressure Gradients", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 246, pp 503-527, Jul. 1993.

95

RONALD M. BARRETT Associate Professor

310 Aerospace Building Phone: (334) 844-6825, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: rbarrett@eng.auburn.edu Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/labinfo/AAL.html

EDUCATION

• 1993 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas • 1990 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland • 1988 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 6

• 2004 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 2003 - Present: Distinguished Visiting Professor, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technical University

of Delft, Netherlands • 1999 - 2003: Alumni Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1998 - 1999: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1995 - 1995: Summer Faculty Fellow, Flight Vehicles Branch, USAF Wright Laboratory, Eglin AFB,

Florida • 1993 - Present: President and O.E.O., Barrett Aerospace Technologies • 1993 - 1993: Visiting Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1993 - 1998: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University • 1991 - 1993: Ph.D. Candidate & NASA Space Grant Fellow, Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas • 1990 - 1991: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas • 1988 - 1990: US Army Rotorcraft Center of Excellence Fellow, Aerospace Engineering, University of

Maryland • 1987 - 1988: Flight Test Engineer, Engineering, Skytrader Corporation

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• Academy of Model Aeronautics • American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • American Society for Engineering Education • American Society of Materials

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• 2004 - Present: Invited expert panelist - DARPA, EPSRC, IMECHE • 2004 - Present: Conference/Session Co-Organizer - Numerous professional conferences • 1999 - Present: AIAA Student Chapter Advisor - Auburn University

96

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2003: Fred H. Pumphrey Teaching Award - Auburn University College of Engineering. • 2003: Outstanding Faculty Member for the College of Engineering - AU College of Engineering. • 2003: Outstanding Faculty Member for the Aerospace Curriculum - Aerospace Engineering Department. • 2002: Walker Merit Teaching Award - Auburn University. • 2000: Outstanding Faculty Member - College of Engineering. • 1999: Alumni Professorship - Auburn University. • 1998: Discover Award for Most Outstanding New Aerospace Technology - Discover Magazine.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 2003 - Present: Sabbatical at the Technical University of Delft - • 1991 - Present: Taught 14 short courses at various locations -

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Adaptive Aerostructures

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Barrett, R. and Stutts, J., "Design, Fabrication and Wind Tunnel Testing of a Piezoelectrically Activated Conical Guided Projectile", AIAA Journal of Aircraft (in review), pp 9, 2004.

• Knowles, G., Barrett, R. & Valentino, M., "Self-Contained High Authority Control of Miniature Flight Control Systems for Area Dominance", Proceedings of the SPIE 11th Annual Symposium on Smart Structures & Materials, San Diego, California, pp 9, Mar. 2004.

• Barrett, R., "Adaptive Aerostructures -- The First Decade of Flight on Uninhabited Aerospace Systems", Proceedings of the SPIE 11th Annual Symposium on Smart Structures & Materials, San Diego, California, pp 12, Mar. 2004.

• Barrett, R., "Design and Testing of Piezoelectric Flight Control Actuators for Hard-Launch Munitions", Proceedings of the SPIE 11th Annual Symposium on Smart Structures & Materials, San Diego, California, pp 9, Mar. 2004.

• Barrett, R., "Adaptive Aerostructures: Improving High Performance, Subscale Military UAVs", 12th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, pp 9, Apr. 2004.

PATENTS

• Barrett, R. M., Corpening J. and Reasonover, C., "Method and Apparatus for Boundary Layer Reattachment Using Piezoelectric Synthetic Jet Actuators", Patent, No. S/N 10/104914, 2004.

• Barrett, R. M., "Convertible Vertical Take-Off and Landing Miniature Aerial Vehicle", Patent issued, No. 6502787, 2002.

• Barrett, R. M., "Method and Apparatus for Sensing in a Desired Direction -- issued through the University of Maryland", Patent issued, No. 5440193, 1995.

97

JOHN E. BURKHALTER Professor

211 Aerospace Building Phone: (334) 844-6812, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: jburk@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1973 - Ph.D., Civil Engineering - Atmospheric Sciences - Fluids, The University of Texas at Austin

• 1964 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1963 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 36

• 1995 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1990 - 1991: Research Associate, Unsteady Aerodynamics, US Air Force Academy, Seiler

Research Lab • 1983 - 1996: Consultant (summers), System Simulation, US Army Missile Command • 1979 - 1995: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1973 - 1979: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1971 - 1972: Research Coordinator, Artificial Heart, Bioengineering, The University of Texas at

Austin • 1968 - 1970: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1965 - 1967: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1976 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2003: Outstanding Faculty of the Year Award - Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University. AIAA Student Award

• 2001: Outstanding Faculty of the Year Award - Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University. AIAA Student Award

• 1996: Birdsong Merit Teaching Award - Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University. College of Engineering Award

• 1979: Departmental Outstanding Faculty Award - Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University. AIAA Student Award

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Research in the optimized design of missile systems using Genetic Algorithms; including aerodynamics, propulsion, mass properties, and 6-DOF simulation codes, 1998-present.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Hartfield, R., Burkhalter, J., Jenkins, R., and Witt, J., "Analytical Development of a Slotted Grain Solid Rocket Motor", accepted: AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2004, 2004.

98

• Hartfield, R J., Jenkins, R M., Burkhalter, J E., and Foster, W A., "A Review of Analytical Methods for Solid Rocket Motor Grain Analysis", accepted: AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2004, 2004.

• Anderson, M. B., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., "Design of a Guided Missile Interceptor Using Genetic Algorithms", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, Jan. 2001.

• Anderson, M. B., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M, "Missile Aerodynamic Shape Optimization", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp 663-669, Oct. 2000.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

• 2003 - Present: C-130 Aerodynamics - Support Systems Associates, Inc. • 2002 - 2003: Missile Aerodynamics and Genetic Algorithms - Summit, Inc.

PATENTS

• Burkhalter, J. E., Runge, T. M., and Pallas, S. G., "Cardiac Replacement Pumping Device", Patent issued, No. 4058857, 1974.

• Cutchins, M. A., Burkhalter, J. E., et al., "Aerial Row Seeder and Method", Patent issued, No. 3944137, 1970.

99

DAVID A. CICCI Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6820, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: dcicci@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1987 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas at Austin • 1976 - MS, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University • 1973 - BS, Mechanical Engineering, West Virginia University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 17

• 2000 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1993 - 2000: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1987 - 1993: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1981 - 1982: Engineering Specialist, Bell Helicopter TEXTRON Corp. • 1977 - 1981: Senior Engineer, Swanson Engineering Associates Corp. • 1974 - 1977: Engineer, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Westinghouse Electric Corp. • 1973 - 1974: Associate Engineer, McGraw-Edison Co.

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1987 - Present: American Astronautical Society • 1981 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • 1978 - Present: American Society of Mechanical Engineers

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• 1991 - Present: Astrodynamics Technical Committee Member - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2002: Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year - AIAA Student Chapter. • 1998: Birdsong Merit Teaching Award - Auburn University College of Engineering. • 1997: Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year - AIAA Student Chapter. • 1992: National Faculty Advisor Award - AIAA Student Activities Committee. • 1989: Summer Faculty Fellowship - U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research. • 1988: Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year - AIAA Student Chapter. • 1984: Ta Beta Pi - National Engineering Honorary. • 1982: Sigma Gamma Tau - National Honor Society in Aerospace Engineering.

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Astrodynamics, Estimation Theory, Kalman Filtering, Guidance and Control, Flight Dynamics, Satellite Geodesy, GPS Applications, and Numerical Analysis

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

100

• Cicci, D. A., Cochran, J. E., Jr., Qualls, C., and Lovell, T. A., "Quick-Look Identification and Orbit Determination of a Tethered Satellite", The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp 339-353, Jul. 2003.

• Cicci, D. A., Lovell, T. A., and Qualls, C., "A Filtering Method for the Identification of a Tethered Satellite", The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp 309-326, Apr. 2001.

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

• State of Alabama • State of Pennsylvania

101

JOHN E. COCHRAN, JR. Professor and Head

211 Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6815, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: jcochran@eng.auburn.edu Website: www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/

EDUCATION

• 1976 - J.D., Law, Jones Law School • 1970 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin • 1967 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1966 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 36

• 1993 - Present: Professor and Head, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1992 - 1993: Interim Head and Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1984 - 1992: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1981 - 1984: Associate Director of Athletics and Professor, Athletics and Aerospace Engineering,

Auburn University • 1980 - 1981: Alumni Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1978 - 1980: Alumni Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1975 - 1975: Visiting Associate Professor, Engineering Science and Systems, University of

Virginia • 1975 - 1978: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1970 - 1975: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1969 - 1970: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1968 - 1969: Research Engineer, Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University

of Texas at Austin • 1967 - 1968: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1993 - Present: American Society for Engineering Education • 1984 - Present: American Helicopter Society • 1980 - Present: Alabama Society of Professional Engineers • 1980 - Present: National Society of Professional Engineers • 1977 - Present: Alabama Bar Association • 1977 - Present: American Bar Association • 1970 - Present: American Astronautical Society • 1967 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • 1967 - Present: Sigma Xi

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 1992: Fellow, American Astronautical Society • 1984: Mortar Board Favorite Educator Award - Auburn University. • 1980: Young Engineer of the Year - Alabama Society of Professional Engineers. • 1978: Alumni Professorship - Auburn University.

102

• 1971: Outstanding Faculty Award, College of Engineering - Auburn University. • 1968: NSF Fellowship - National Science Foundation. Support of study leading to PhD • 1966: Tau Beta Pi Fellowship • 1966: National Collegiate Athletic Association Fellowship • 1966: Phi Kappa Phi - Auburn University. • 1965: Earl "Red" Blaik Scholar Athlete Award - National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame.

One of ten nationally

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Dynamics, guidance, stability, and control of aerospace vehicles - development of single and mutli-body models of aerospace vehicles, guidance laws; stability of nonlinear systems; development of optimal control laws.

• Use of digital simulations and computer graphics in accident reconstruction. • Orbital Mechanics - application of analytical perturbation theories; optimal trajectories; spacecraft

attitude dynamics and control; formations • Simulation of aerospace vehicles, including towed flight vehicle systems; graphical simulations of

intermodal transportation systems.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Lovell, T. A, Cochran, J. E., Jr., Cicci, D. A., and Cho, S., "A study of the re-entry orbit discrepancy involving tethered satellites", Acta Astronautica, Vol. 53, pp 21-33, 2003.

• No, T. S., Cochran, J. E., Jr., Kim, J-K, and Kim, E. G., "A Design Method of Guidance Laws for Bank-To-Turn Missiles", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp 255-260, Mar. 2002.

• Cicci, D. A., Cochran, J. E., Jr., Qualls, C., and Lovell, T. A, "Quick-Look Identification and Orbit Determination of a Tethered Satellite", Journal of the Astronautical Sciences,, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp 339-353, Jul. 2002.

• Cochran, J. E., Jr., Cho, S., Cheng, Y-M, and Cicci, D. A., "Dynamics and Orbit Determination of Tethered Satellite Systems", Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp 177-194, Apr. 1998.

• Cochran, J. E., Jr., Innocenti, M., No, T. S., and Thukral, A., "Dynamics and Control of Maneuverable Towed Flight Vehicles", Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp 1245-1252, Sep. 1992.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

• 1995 - 1997: Patent infringement (missile component) - U. S. Department of Justice • 1984 - Present: Numerous engineering analyses - Eaglemark, Inc. • 1977 - Present: Accident analysis and reconstruction; products liability - Numerous Clients

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

• State of Alabama

103

WINFRED A. FOSTER, JR. Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6841, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: wfoster@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1974 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1969 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1967 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 29

• 1996 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1983 - 1996: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1979 - 1983: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1978 - 1979: Senior Design Engineer, Government Products Division, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft

Company • 1974 - 1978: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • Phi Kappa Phi • Sigma Gamma Tau • Sigma Xi

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• Solid Rocket Technical Committee - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • Associate Editor - Journal of Propulsion and Power

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 1974: IR-100 Award - Industrial Research Magazine. Aerial Row Seeder (Top 100 New Products in 1974)

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 1974 - NASA/ASEE Summer Faculty Research Fellow - George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Computational Mechanics • Solid Rocket Motor Design and Analysis

PATENTS

104

• Cutchins, Foster, Orlin, Burkhalter and Martin, "Aerial Seeder and Method", Patent issued, No. 3944137, 1976.

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

• State of Alabama • State of Florida

105

ROBERT S. GROSS Associate Professor

211 AE Building Phone: (334) 844-6846, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: rgross@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1988 - Ph.D, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University • 1979 - MS, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University • 1977 - BS, Forestry, Virginia Tech

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 16

• 1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1988 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1982 - 1984: Staff Research Engineer, Research Division, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company • 1979 - 1982: Mechanical Engineer, Naval Surface Weapons Center

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1995 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• 2001 - 2003: College Representative - University Curriculum Committee • 1997 - Present: Undergraduate Advisor - Aerospace Engineering Department • 1997 - Present: Computer Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering Department • 1997 - Present: ABET Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering Department • 1996 - Present: Department Representative - College of Engineering • 1995 - Present: Member - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • 1993 - Present: Building Facilities Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering Department • 1993 - Present: Structural Mechanics Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering

Department • 1993 - Present: Composite Materials Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering

Department

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2000: Outstanding Professor Award - AIAA. • 1998: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member - AE Students. • 1996: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member - AE Students. • 1995: Birdsong Superior Teaching Award - College of Engineering. • 1994: Fred H. Pumphrey Teaching Award - College of Engineering. • 1994: Faculty Member of the Year, College of Engineering - Student Government Association.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 2000 - 2003: Attended AIAA Southeastern Student Conference -

106

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Aerospace Composite Materials and Design of Remote Control Blimps

107

ROY J. HARTFIELD, JR. Associate Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Phone: (334) 844-6819, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: rjh@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1991 - Ph.D., Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia • 1989 - MS, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia • 1985 - BS, Physics, University of Southern Mississippi

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 13

• 1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1991 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1989 - Present: American Association of Aeronautics and Astronautics • 1989 - Present: American Society of Mechanical Engineers

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 1996: Summer Faculty Fellowship (1992-93-95-96) - NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 2003: Advanced Topics in Solid Rockets Short Course - Presented to the Missile Space Intelligence Command, Huntsville, AL

• 2002: Solid Rockets Short Course - Presented to the Missile Space Intelligence Command, Huntsville, AL

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Studies • Systems Optimization using Genetic Algorithms: Specifically, missile, propulsion system and

rocket motor optimization.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Hartfield, R., Burkhalter, J., Jenkins, R., and Witt, J., "Analytical Development of a Slotted Grain Solid Rocket Motor", Journal of Propulsion and Power, accepted for publication, 2004.

• Szasz, G., Flowers, G., and Hartfield, R., "Hub Based Vibration Control of Multiple Rotating Airfoils", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1155-1163, Nov. 2000.

108

RHONALD M. JENKINS Associate Professor

301 Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6839, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: rjenkins@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1969 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Purdue University • 1965 - MS, Engineering Science, Florida State University • 1964 - BS, Engineering Science, Florida State University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 19

• 1994 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1985 - 1994: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 1983 - 1985: Associate Professor and Acting Head, Department of Aerospace Science

Engineering, Tuskegee University • 1978 - 1983: Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Tuskegee University • 1972 - 1978: Manager, Chemical & Mechanical Process Engineering, Magnetic Tape Division,

Ampex Corporation • 1969 - 1972: Engineering Specialist, Gas Turbine Design, Garrett AiResearch Manufacturing

Corp.

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1969 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2003: AIAA Outstanding Faculty Award - Auburn University. • 2001: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1998: AIAA Outstanding Achievement Award - Auburn University. • 1998: AIAA Outstanding Professor Award - Auburn University. • 1997: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1995: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1993: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1993: AIAA Outstanding Professor Award - Auburn University. • 1993: Birdsong Merit Teaching Award - Auburn University. • 1990: Fred H. Pumphrey Teaching Award - Auburn University. • 1990: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1988: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1986: Outstanding Aerospace Engineering Faculty - Auburn University. • 1984: Tuskegee University Teacher of the Year - Tuskegee University.

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Use of Artificial Intelligence (genetic algorithms) in Propulsion Systems Design • Aerothermodynamics of Propulsion • Electric Propulsion Systems

109

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

• Hartfield, R., Jenkins, R., and Burkhalter, J., "Ramjet Powered Missile Design Using a Genetic Algorithm", AIAA 2004-0451: 42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 2004.

• Anderson, M., Burkhalter, J., and Jenkins, R., "Design of a Guided Missile Interceptor Using a Genetic Algorithm", AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp 28-35, Jan. 2001.

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

• State of Alabama

110

CHRISTOPHER J. ROY Assistant Professor

Room 335, Aerospace Engineering Bldg. Phone: (334) 844-5187, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: cjroy@eng.auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 1998 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University • 1994 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University • 1992 - BS, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 1

• 2003 - Present: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University • 1998 - 2003: Senior Member of Technical Staff, Aerosciences and Compressible Fluid Mechanics

Dept, Sandia National Laboratories • 1994 - 1998: Graduate Assistant, Aerospace Engineering Department, North Carolina State

University

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• 1998 - Present: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) • 1992 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2001: Employee Recognition Award - Sandia National Laboratories. For outstanding contributions to the B61 jet-fin interaction team.

• 2001: Sandia Award for Excellence - Sandia National Laboratories. For outstanding technical work.

• 2000: Sandia Award for Excellence - Sandia National Laboratories. For technical excellence in computational aerodynamics.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 2004 - Present: Instructor for AIAA Short Course - Title: Verification and Validation in Computational Simulation

• 1999 - Present: AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee -

RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Computational Fluid Dynamics: numerical solution to the Euler & Navier-Stokes equations • Verification and Validation: assessing mathematical & physical correctness of simulations • Turbulence Modeling: advanced modeling approaches to fluid turbulence • Combustion and Propulsion: simulation of chemically reacting flows • Gas Dynamics / Nonequilibrium Flows: compressible flows & thermochemistry simulation • Microscale Gas Flows: modeling the flow of gases through microscale devices

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

111

• Roy, C. J., Nelson, C. C., Smith, T. M., and Ober, C. C., "Verification of Euler / Navier-Stokes Codes using the Method of Manufactured Solutions", International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp 599-620, Feb. 2004.

• Roy, C. J., "Grid Convergence Error Analysis for Mixed-Order Numerical Schemes", AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp 595-604, Apr. 2003.

• Roy, C. J. and Blottner, F. G., "Methodology for Turbulence Model Validation: Application to Hypersonic Transitional Flows", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp 313-325, May. 2003.

• Roy, C. J., Gallis, M. A., Bartel, T. J., and Payne, J. L., "Navier-Stokes and DSMC Predictions for Laminar Hypersonic Shock-Induced Separation", AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp 1055-1063, Jun. 2003.

• Roy, C. J., McWherter-Payne, M. A., and Oberkampf, W. L., "Verification and Validation for Laminar Hypersonic Flowfields Part 1: Verification", AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 10, pp 1934-1943, Oct. 2003.

• Roy, C. J., Oberkampf, W. L., and McWherter-Payne, M. A., "Verification and Validation for Laminar Hypersonic Flowfields Part 2: Validation", AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 10, pp 1944-1954, Oct. 2003.

• Edwards, J. R., Roy, C. J., Blottner, F. G., and Hassan, H. A., "Development of One-Equation Transition/Turbulence Models", AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp 1691-1698, Sep. 2001.

• Roy, C. J. and Blottner, F. G., "Assessment of One- and Two-Equation Turbulence Models for Hypersonic Transitional Flows", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp 699-710, Sep. 2001.

• Roy, C. J. and Edwards, J. R., "Numerical Simulation of a Three-Dimensional Flame/Shock Wave Interaction", AIAA Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp 745-754, May. 2000.

112

JAMES S. VOSS Associate Dean for External Affairs Ramsey 107 and Aerospace 329

Phone: (334) 844-2894 E-mail: vossjam@auburn.edu

EDUCATION

• 2000 - Ph.D., Honorary, University of Colorado • 1974 - MS, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado • 1972 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 1

• 2003 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University • 2003 - Present: Associate Dean for External Affairs, College of Engineering, Auburn University • 1984 - 2003: Astronaut, Astronaut Office/Flight Crew Operations, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration • 1978 - 1981: Associate Professor, Mechanics, U.S. Military Academy • 1972 - 1999: Army Officer, U.S. Army, U.S. Government

SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

• American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics • Association of Space Explorers • Experimental Aircraft Association

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2003: Gagarin Gold Medal - National Aeronautic Association. • 2003: Distinguished Engineering Alumni Award - University of Colorado. • 2002: Alabama Engineering Hall of Fame • 2001: Space Flight Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 2001: Distinguished Service Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 2000: Space Flight Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1999: Distinguished Service Medal - U.S. Army. • 1996: Outstanding Leadership Award - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1995: Space Flight Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1994: Exceptional Service Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1993: Defense Meritorious Service Medal - U.S. Department of Defense. • 1993: Space Flight Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1992: Defense Superior Service Medal - U.S. Department of Defense. • 1992: Outstanding Engineering Alumnus Award - Auburn University. • 1992: Space Flight Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. • 1983: Outstanding Student Award - U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. • 1982: Meritorious Service Medal - U.S. Army. • 1982: William P. Clements Award for Excellence in Education - U.S. Military Academy. • 1979: Commandant's list - U.S. Army Infantry School. • 1978: Army Commendation Medal - U.S. Army. • 1975: Honor Graduate and Leadership Award - U.S. Ranger School.

113

• 1974: Distinguished Graduate - U.S. Army Infantry School.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• 2003 - 2003: Human Exploration of Space short course -

1996 - 2001: International Space Station crew training -

D. Educational Objectives Survey Questionnaire and Results The survey questionnaire used to request input from previous graduates regarding Educational Objectives and an analysis of the results of the 2004 survey are provided in this appendix.

______________________________________________________________________________

Alumni Questionnaire

The Auburn University Department of Aerospace Engineering has as its stated educational objectives that we seek to:

3. provide our new graduates with the necessary analytical and communication skills either to

pursue graduate study or to enter the aerospace workforce directly; 4. provide our alumni with an appreciation of the necessity to adapt, through life-long learning, to

both the constantly changing needs and demands of society and to their own evolving personal career goals.

In order to help us assess how well we are meeting these objectives, we ask that you answer the following questions and return the questionnaire by e-mail. When appropriate, simply answer (a), (b), etc. within the answer box. Spaces are provided for additional comments if you desire.

114

1. When did you receive your undergraduate degree?

(a) 0 – 2 years ago (b) 2 – 5 years ago (c) 5 – 10 years ago (d) more than 10 years ago

2. Upon receipt of your degree did you

(a) pursue and obtain an advanced degree in aero(b) pursue and obtain an advanced degree in anot(c) pursue and obtain a degree in a discipline oth(d) pursue, but not yet obtain, an advanced (or ot(e) directly enter the aerospace workforce? (f) directly enter the workforce, but not in an aer

3. Please describe the nature of your FIRST employmen

Answer:

Answer:

space engineering? her engineering discipline? er than engineering? her) degree?

ospace related area?

t after graduation.

Answer:

(a) related to aerodynamics (b) related to aerospace structures (c) related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and control (d) related to propulsion (e) related to aerospace dynamics (f) related to aerospace design (g) related to aerospace modeling and simulation (h) other aerospace application (please explain below) (i) not related to aerospace (please explain below)

4. Please describe the nature of your PRESENT employment job description.

Explanation for (h) or (i):

(a) related to aerodynamics (b) related to aerospace structures (c) related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, a(d) related to propulsion (e) related to aerospace dynamics (f) related to aerospace design (g) related to aerospace modeling and simulation (h) related to engineering management (i) other aerospace application (please explain below) (j) not related to aerospace (please explain below)

Explanation for (i) or (j):

5. For your FIRST employment situation, how would you rate areas:

115

Answer:

nd control

your preparation in the following

A. Necessary Fundamental Analytical Skills

11

(a) totally inadequate (b) adequate, but with deficiencies (c) adequate, with no deficiencies

Please elaborate below, if you wish.

Answer:

B. Necessary Oral Communication Skills

a. totally inadequate b. adequate, but with deficiencies c. adequate, with no deficiencies

Please elaborate below, if you wish.

Answer:

C. Necessary Written Communication Skills

(a) totally inadequate

(b) adequate, but with deficiencies

(c) adequate, with no deficiencies

Answer:

Answer: Answer:

6

Please elaborate below, if you wish.

Answer:

6. In the time since graduation, do you feel that your personal career goals have changed

117

(a) not at all Answer: (b) somewhat (c) greatly

Please elaborate below, if you wish.

Answer:

7. Whether or not your personal career goals have changed, do you feel that it is important grow and learn as time passes?

(a) no, not at all Answer: (b) it’s somewhat important, but not necessary to me personally

(c) yes, it’s very important to me

Please elaborate below , if you wish.

Answer:

8. Overall, how do you feel about the preparation you received while a student in the Department of Aerospace Engineering?

118

(a) overall, it could have been better (b) mostly adequate, but with some deficiencies (c) my preparation was adequate (d) my preparation was excellent

If you desire, please elaborate, and use the space below todeem important.

Answer:

Please send this completed questionnaire to Ms. Melanie Tin

Thank you for your time.

The Faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering

Answer:

provide any other information you

ney, harlima@auburn.edu.

119

Analysis of Aerospace Engineering Program Educational Objectives Survey

The Auburn University Department of Aerospace Engineering has as its stated educational objectives that we seek to:

provide our new graduates with the necessary analytical tools and communication skills to either successfully complete further graduate study or to directly enter the aerospace workforce.

provide our alumni with an appreciation of the necessity to adapt, through life-long learning, to the both the constantly changing needs and demands of society and to their own evolving personal career goals.

In order to assess how well the Department is meeting these objectives, a survey questionnaire was sent to a total of sixty-two (62) of our alumni who graduated within the last six years. Thirty-six (37) responses were received, for a response rate of 59.7%. The questions and a breakdown of responses follow. All questions were not answered by all respondents, nor were there explanations and/or elaborations in all cases. In some cases, multiple answers were given.

Question 1

Concerning when the undergraduate degree was obtained: 15 respondents (42%) received their degree 0-2 years ago

17 respondents (47%) received their degree 2-5 years ago

4 respondents (11%) received their degree 5-10 years ago

Question 2

Concerning the period immediately following receipt of the degree: 8 respondents (22%) said they pursued and obtained an advanced degree in aerospace engineering

2 respondents (6%) said they pursued and obtained an advanced degree in another engineering discipline

0 respondents (0%) said they pursued and obtained a degree in a discipline other than engineering

2 respondents (6%) said they are pursuing, but have not yet obtained, an advanced degree

14 respondents (39%) said they directly entered the aerospace workforce

120

10 respondents (28%) said they directly entered the workforce in a non-aerospace related area

Question 3

Concerning the nature of the FIRST employment after graduation:

4 respondents (11%) obtained a job related to aerodynamics

4 respondents (11%) obtained a job related to aerospace structures

4 respondents (11%) obtained a job related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and control

4 respondents (11%) obtained a job related to propulsion

0 respondents (1%) obtained a job related to aerospace dynamics

3 respondents (8%) obtained a job related to aerospace design

2 respondents (6%) obtained a job related to aerospace modeling and simulation

3 respondents (8%) obtained a job in other aerospace applications

9 respondents (25%) obtained a job not related to aerospace

Question 4

Concerning the nature of the PRESENT employment: 4 respondents (11%) have a job related to aerodynamics

4 respondents (11%) have a job related to aerospace structures

3 respondents (8%) have a job related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and control

5 respondents (14%) have a job related to propulsion

1 respondent (3%) has a job related to aerospace dynamics

1 respondent (3%) have a job related to aerospace design

3 respondents (8%) have a job related to aerospace modeling and simulation

4 respondents (11%) have a job related to engineering management

5 respondents (14%) have a job other aerospace application

6 respondents (17%) have a job not related to aerospace

Question 5A

Concerning analytical preparation for the first job:

2 respondents (6%) said their preparation was totally inadequate

15 respondents (42%) said their preparation was adequate, but with deficiencies

121

19 respondents (53%) said their preparation was adequate, with no deficiencies

Neither respondent who said their analytical preparation was totally inadequate offered any explanation or other criticism. The primary deficiencies mentioned were (in no particular order)

· A lack of business related curriculum content · A disconnect between classroom theory and “real world” or “hands on” experience · A lack of programming instruction

Question 5B

Concerning preparation in oral communications skills for the first job: 1 respondent (3%) said his/her preparation was totally inadequate

11 respondents (30%) said their preparation was adequate, but with deficiencies

24 respondents (67%) said their preparation was adequate, with no deficiencies

The single respondent who said his/her oral communications preparation was totally inadequate did not offer any explanation or other criticism. The overwhelming majority of those who cited deficiencies mentioned a need for more classroom presentation experiences.

Question 5C

Concerning preparation in written communications skills for the first job: 1 respondent (3%) said his/her preparation was totally inadequate

8 respondents (22%) said their preparation was adequate, but with deficiencies

26 respondents (72%) said their preparation was adequate, with no deficiencies

The single respondent who said his/her written communications preparation was totally inadequate did not offer any explanation or other criticism. A lack of technical writing experience was cited by more than one respondent. Most offered no specific criticism.

Question 6

Concerning whether personal career goals have changed since graduation: 11 respondents (30%) said “not at all”

21 respondents (58%) said “somewhat”

4 respondents (11%) said “greatly”

Question 7

Concerning the importance of continuing to learn and of intellectual growth: 0 respondents (0%) said “no, not at all”

122

0 respondents (0%) said “it’s somewhat important, but not necessary to me personally”

36 respondents (100%) said “yes, it’s very important to me”

Question 8

Concerning the overall preparation received as a student in our curriculum: 2 respondents (6%) said “overall, it could have been better”

5 respondents (14%) said “mostly adequate, but with some deficiencies”

15 respondents (42%) said “my preparation was adequate”

14 respondents (39%) said “my preparation was excellent”

The primary comments about the overall curriculum were (in no particular order):

· Too much emphasis on “aero” and not enough on “space” · Too little relation between textbook equations and “real world” applications · A lack of “hands on experiences”

Note: Percentages do not always add up to 100% due to round-off, or to someone not answering a question.

123

E. SENIOR EXIT INTERVIEWS In the spring of 2002, members of the Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council came to campus and interviewed graduating seniors. The purpose of these interviews was to get outside, objective, aerospace engineers with many years to industrial experience to ask the seniors about a number of things that relate directly to the achievement of program outcomes.

Senior Exit Interviews April 29, 2002

General Morris Penny (Class of 65) and Louis Connor (Class of 66) conducted senior exit interviews where a series questions related to their educational experience in the Aerospace Engineering Department was asked. The series of questions were constructed with the objective of determining each student’s perception of the program. The interviewers sought both critical and complimentary responses.

The exit interviews were conducted independent of the Aerospace Engineering Department staff. Several interviews were conducted with more than one student present. The results of those particular interviews represent a composite of individual thoughts.

Exit Interview Summary 1. Classroom examinations were generally consistent with the material covered for the exam.

There was very positive feedback that most examinations contained questions that challenged the students. They did not view these as “trick” questions but rather testing their ability to apply what they had learned.

2. It was pretty much the universal view the quality of textbooks received a good rating. Those with numerous examples were found to be the best teaching aids. The more examples, the better they liked the book.

3. The interviewees were unanimous in saying the instructors worked very hard to ensure students gained an understanding of the material. There was very positive feedback that most all instructors were readily available for outside consultation.

4. There was unanimity in stating CAD CAM instruction was needed in the department and that applications software for real world problems was the best learning tools.

5. Students appear to be very comfortable with the use of computers as an aid in completing classroom assignments.

6. The general consensus was that team projects were good “learning” aids. These were viewed as means to teach teamwork and planning. Projects were thought of as a means to turn theory into reality and a way to gain “hands - on” experience. They wanted more added to the curriculum.

124

7. Most students appear to be leaning toward careers in industry rather than entering into academics.

8. Many students feel pressure to complete a rigorous regiment of schedule of course work, which provided little leeway to pursue courses of interest.

9. The strength of the Department of Aerospace Engineering was considered to be: its staff of instructors, their approach to classroom instruction and availability for follow-up assistance.

10. An interesting theme seemed to prevail in that, in general, the curriculum is thought to have more emphasis on “aeronautical” than “aerospace.”

Interviewer Questions and Responses

1. Were there any courses you wanted to take but were unable to?

In general, there was concern expressed that too many electives had been eliminated. Several interviewees indicated they were unable to take several courses due to lack of time and/or there was no room in the schedule. Some thought was expressed that more time should be allotted to take additional courses; propulsion and orbital mechanics were frequently mentioned.

2. In general, how well prepared were the instructors and comment on the thoroughness of the classroom instruction?

Interviewees indicated classroom instruction was very thorough. Classroom instruction was well planned and organized.

3. Comment on the instructors’ availability outside the classroom.

Unanimous consensus of interviewees is that they could always approach instructors for assistance outside the classroom; instructors were very helpful.

4. In general, did examinations match classroom instruction.

The general answer is yes. It was indicated an occasional instructor would come out of “left field”. Examinations were thought to be challenging (in a positive way). Outside classroom assignments were considered through) this was viewed as very positive)

5. Was classroom participation encouraged?

The general consensus is: Yes. In general, instructors readily returned to key points to clarify. Interviewees believed a good relationship existed between the instructors and students.

6. Were team projects were ever utilized and if so, comment the value to the student?

This question drew a unanimous positive response. Senior design was viewed as very good; it demonstrated the need for a team effort (considered a valuable teaching aid). This type course is thought to give valuable insight into concept development through construction. In general, the interviewees wanted to see more team projects (e. g. space

125

missions, missile or aircraft design); there was thought the student should be permitted to choose one.

7. In general, where can improvements be made?

a) Classroom instruction?

b) Laboratory instruction?

The interviewees tended to consolidate one answer for both parts. In general it was thought the curriculum could benefit from more focus on the use of engineering tools (e. g. software applications, CAD related etc.) and incorporate more “hands on” experience (application versus theory). Some specifics include more emphasis on orbital mechanics and propulsion. Several suggested the need for a computer lab.

8. In general, what were the strong points of?

a) Classroom instruction?

b) Laboratory instruction?

The interviewees tended to consolidate one answer for both parts. In general, the strengths of the Department of Aerospace Engineering are perceived to be its staff of instructors. Classroom instruction is well thought out; instructors are good at explaining on the student level. Classes are small enough for students to look at the classroom experience as “one-on-one”. The majority thought the curriculum very strong in structures and aerodynamics.

9. Did you encounter problems scheduling required classes or electives?

The general consensus is no.

10. Have you been told in any job interviews with industry there were courses you needed but were unable to take?

The general consensus is no.

11. How comfortable or prepared do you feel in the use of computers to accomplish a work assignment?

The general consensus is graduating seniors are very comfortable with utilizing computer (desk top and lap top variety) in accomplishing assignment. One expressed anxiety with their use in the workplace. More than one person expressed the thought students could greatly benefit from instruction in programming application; probably the “C” language.

12. Comment on the utility/clarity of textbooks for the course work; easy to follow; hard to follow; moderate.

This question drew a mixed response. However, in general, the consensus is students’ benefit greatly from examples. Textbooks that were the most difficult to understand and grasp the theory were the ones deficient in examples. Specific examples cited were the textbooks for mechanics and vibration, which did not have sufficient examples and

126

frequently left out steps. The structural dynamics book was considered very difficult to follow. On the other hand, the textbooks thought to be very good covered finite element analysis and aerodynamics.

13. Do you plan to pursue an advanced degree?

This drew a mixed response.

14. Do you plan to pursue an academic or industry environment?

The majority plans to pursue careers in industry. This question prompted a response expressing the need for instruction in presentations.

15. Do you plan to enter an engineering or non-engineering career?

All plan to enter an engineering career.

16. Did you obtain any work experience during the course of your studies in Aerospace Engineering Department?

Few did. However, those that did befitted from the experience.

Other considerations:

An interesting theme seemed to prevail in that, in general, the curriculum is thought to have more emphasis on “aeronautical” than “aerospace.”

There should be a “senior check list.” This would include items such as

1) Things to be aware of, events, time phasing, preparations, etc.

2) Things to be prepared for or when to make a decision for. Examples are the F.E. and P.E. exams.

3) Interviews

127

F. SEMESTER TRANSITION Aerospace Engineering

Justification for Semester Curriculum Implementation Fall 2000

1. Objectives and Outcomes Aerospace engineers are concerned with the application of scientific principles and engineering concepts and practices to design, build, test and operate aerospace systems. The aerospace engineering curriculum is intended to provide students with a broad understanding of fundamental scientific and technological principles, and to develop the ability to use these principles in developing solutions to engineering problems.

The objectives of the aerospace engineering program are: (1) to help students develop written and oral communication skills and to acquire a knowledge of history, literature and society; (2) to provide students a solid foundation in and a sound working knowledge of basic engineering principles; (3) to help students obtain an understanding of the engineering principles and skills specifically needed in the aeronautical and astronautical disciplines; and (4) to assist and encourage each student to develop an enhanced ability to learn and think creatively.

Required courses cover aeronautical and astronautical subjects. Students may also choose to emphasize either aeronautical or astronautical systems. Technical electives allow concentration in such areas as aerodynamics, astronautics, flight dynamics and control, propulsion, structures and structural dynamics. Senior design courses draw on the knowledge gained during the first three years of study and provide an understanding of the methods used in designing aerospace vehicles and systems, as well as, with experience working on goal-oriented design teams.

Graduates of the aerospace engineering curriculum should be able to contribute effectively on a professional level in a wide range of positions within industry and government. They should have a good appreciation for professional development and research. Those graduates who have done exceptionally well academically should have the option of continued study at an advanced level.

Justification for 128 Credit Hour Program: The faculty of the Aerospace Engineering department established an extensive set of program objectives and outcomes as part of the University’s strategic planning effort and these were presented at the beginning of this semester curriculum proposal. In addition, the faculty established some goals specific to this curriculum transition. These goals guided our assessment of the current quarter curriculum and helped us determine the content and size of our semester model. These goals are listed below in order of priority, from highest to lowest.

1) Maintain and continuously strive to improve the current academic and technical quality of the program as determined by the faculty.

2) Maintain and continuously strive to improve the current national and regional rankings of the department based on the quality of the undergraduate program.

128

3) Meet and in response to competitive forces exceed the minimum instructional requirements established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

The faculty feel that each of these goals are satisfied by the proposed undergraduate semester program and our justification of the fact that our proposed curriculum exceeds the 120 credit hour constraint is provided in the following sections.

Goal 1: Maintain and continuously strive to improve the current academic and technical quality of the program as determined by the faculty.

In the fall of 1997, the faculty began to determine what technical topics were required to meet the departmental objectives discussed in the previous section. First, the faculty listed the basic disciplines comprising Aerospace Engineering: aerodynamics, structures/materials, controls, flight mechanics, propulsion, astrodynamics and design. Due to the fact that during the last decade, the department has been through several curriculum revisions (last revision became effective in the summer of 1997), the faculty felt that they were very well prepared to produce a semester curriculum that is consistent with current industrial standards and needs.

The second step in the transition process involved the creation of compilation of courses and topics for the current quarter curriculum and the previous quarter curriculum which was revised for the 1997-1998 academic year. This effort led to the information presented below in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the curriculum revision that was implemented in the 1997-1998 year resulted in a decrease in the graduation requirements from 210 to 198 quarter hours. This contraction of the curriculum was not initiated by the Aerospace Engineering department, but was in response to a mandate from the COE dean to reduce the program to approximately 195 quarter hours. The 12 credit hour reduction that resulted from this mandate came entirely from the elimination of engineering credit hours. Nine of the twelve hours came from Aerospace Engineering topics (6-Aerodynamics and 3- Structures) as shown in Table 1. The remaining three hours came from the elimination of an engineering drafting course. This significant reduction in engineering content came after several very heated meetings of the entire department faculty. During these meetings, several faculty noted that the last accreditation visit involved the inspection and the approval by ABET of the 210 quarter hour (140 semester hour) curriculum, not the “new” 198 hour curriculum. ABET did visit and reviewed the 198 hour curriculum in late September and their deficiency report will arrive sometime this spring. The Aerospace Engineering faculty is very concerned about the effect on accreditation of the recent 12 credit hour reduction in engineering content.

With regard to the construction of a semester curriculum, the data in Table 1 was employed to establish the “equivalent” semester credits corresponding to the current quarter credits for each of Aerospace Engineering subject areas. Educational topic lists were prepared for each of the subject areas listed in Table 1 and using these lists, the general outline for each of the semester courses within the various subject areas were created. Needless to say, many hours of discussion with the entire faculty were necessary to create the semester courses listed in Table 1. One of the most important observations to make from the data in Table 1 is that some of the subject areas suffered some “loss” of credits (class material) in the transition. The Flight Dynamics, Controls, Astrodynamics and Propulsion subject areas consist of only one course in the proposed semester curriculum, so further reduction is impossible. The presence of the two, 3 credit

129

Aero/Astro Elective courses is intended to allow the students to expand their knowledge of the four aforementioned critical subject areas beyond the single required course.

Table 1: Semester-Quarter Equivalency SUBJECT AREA

QUARTER COURSES 1996-1997 (210 hours)

QUARTER COURSES 1998-1999 (198 hours)

EQUIVALENT SEMESTER CREDIT (Factor = 2/3) (198 hours)

PROPOSED SEMESTER COURSES (131 hours)

Aerodynamics

MECH 340 (3) AERO 302 (4) AERO 303 (5) AERO 304 (4) AERO 305 (3) AERO 400 (3) TOTAL (22)

AERO 0300 (5) AERO 0301 (3) AERO 0306 (2) AERO 0308 (3) AERO 0400 (3) TOTAL (16)

10.6

AERO 3110 (3) AERO 3120 (3) AERO 3130 (2) AERO 4140 (3) TOTAL (11)

Structures and Materials

AERO 307 (5) AERO 311 (3) AERO 409 (5) AERO 521 (3) AERO 529 (4) TOTAL (20)

AERO 0307 (4) AERO 0311 (3) AERO 409 (4) AERO 0521 (3) AERO 0529 (3) TOTAL (17)

11.3

AERO 3610 (2) AERO 4620 (3) AERO 4630 (3) AERO 4640 (2) TOTAL (10)

Flight Dynamics

AERO 339 (4) AERO 541 (3) TOTAL (7)

AERO 0339 (4) AERO 0541 (3) TOTAL (7)

4.7

AERO 3230 (4) TOTAL (4)

Controls

AERO 334 (3) TOTAL (3)

AERO 0334 (3) TOTAL (3)

2

AERO 3220 (3) TOTAL (3)

Astrodynamics

AERO 0332 (3) AERO 0533 (3) TOTAL (6)

AERO 0332 (3) AERO 0533 (3) TOTAL (6)

4

AERO 3310 (3) TOTAL (3)

Propulsion AERO 0415 (5) TOTAL (5)

AERO 0415 (5) TOTAL (5)

3.3 AERO 4510 (4) TOTAL (4)

Design

AERO 0447 (3) AERO 0448 (3) AERO 0449 (3) TOTAL (9)

AERO 0447 (3) AERO 0448 (3) AERO 0449 (3) TOTAL (9)

6

AERO 4710 (3) AERO 4720 (3) TOTAL (6)

130

The faculty is not completely comfortable with this “loss” of material, but have accepted that this curriculum is the best possible under the given set of credit constraints. With this curriculum, the faculty members feel that the quality of the academic program has been maintained at current levels. The faculty members feel that any further reduction in the number of credits (class material) from the proposed semester curriculum will certainly lead to an unacceptable reduction in the quality of the Aerospace Engineering program.

Goal 2: Maintain and continuously strive to improve the current national and regional rankings of the department based on the quality of the undergraduate program.

The national rankings for some peer institution undergraduate programs in Aerospace Engineering are summarized in Table 2. These rankings are from the 1998 Gourman Report on Undergraduate Aerospace Engineering Programs. Three engineering programs at Auburn rank within the top 45 programs nationally in their respective fields: Aerospace Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering and Materials Engineering. A summary of these rankings for the Aerospace Engineering programs is shown in Table 2. These rankings are based on evaluation of the various programs by practicing engineers, scientists and academic faculty and as such, the rankings represent the “heritage” of each of the programs. Reduction of the technical content within the proposed semester curriculum compared to our peer institutions would lead to a long-term decline in national ranking. We would like to improve to be included in the top 25 nationally ranked programs as listed in the Gourman Report rather than have our ranking decline.

Table 2: National Ranking of Undergraduate Aerospace Engineering Programs

Institution Ranking

Texas A&M 15

Texas 19

Florida 26

Tennessee 27

Virginia Tech 29

NC State 32

Auburn 35

Mississippi State 42

In the summer of 1997, the faculty began an intensive review of the curriculum models of eight peer institutions. These institutions are: Alabama, Mississippi State, Virginia Tech, Florida, Texas A&M, NC State, Purdue and Colorado. A detailed analysis of the curriculum models determined the total number of hours for graduation and the total hours required in each institution’s “core curriculum.” In addition, the number of semester hours in each of the technical areas of Aerospace Engineering: aerodynamics, structures, materials, controls, propulsion, and astrodynamics were recorded.

131

A summary of the data is presented below in tabular form for these institutions and for Auburn. The “core” semester hours are those semester hours that each institution requires the student to complete in the humanities, social sciences and fine art areas. Any mathematics and physical science requirements are not represented in this “core” number. Of special interest to our faculty is the last column in Table 3 which shows the difference between the “Total” hours and the “Core” hours. This difference value roughly represents the engineering and science content of the curriculum. The “Technical” semester hours in the proposed Aerospace Engineering curriculum at Auburn falls close to the average of the eight peer institutions.

Table 3: Peer Institution Comparison

School Total

Semester Hours

“Core”

Semester Hours

“Technical”

Semester Hours

(Total minus Core)

Alabama 134 27 107

Miss. State 139 30 109

Virginia Tech 136 27 109

Florida 127 25 102

Texas A&M 140 30 110

NC State* 126 34 92

Purdue 132 30 102

Colorado 126 18 108

average = 104.8

Auburn 128 30 98

*Note: The curriculum at NC State does not have any technical electives, i.e., the students have no choice in the Aeronautical engineering courses they must complete for graduation. Also, NC State is accredited as an Aeronautical engineering program. This means that students are not exposed to astronautical (Space) related topics such astrodynamics in their undergraduate program unlike Auburn and the other peer institutions.

Goal 3. Meet and, in response to competitive forces, exceed the minimum instructional requirements established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) programs has recently adopted outcome-driven assessment format for accrediting programs beginning in 1998.

132

Previously, the ABET criteria involved a fairly rigid set of credit and course-content standards. The new criteria should result in a strengthened emphasis on improving the overall quality of the undergraduate program through the establishment of a comprehensive set of program objectives and desired outcomes. This set of objective and desired outcomes provides the blueprint for the development of an improved undergraduate and graduate academic program. Due to both the change in the ABET guidelines and the recent strategic planning thrust at the University level, an extensive set of objectives and outcomes for the Aerospace Engineering department has been presented earlier in this curriculum proposal. The faculty designed this proposed curriculum based upon this set.

One of the older “rigid” standards that ABET has retained requires that the curriculum model contain a minimum of 32 semester hours of “Mathematics and Basic Science.” The basic science category includes: chemistry, physics and biology. Since the introduction of the Core Curriculum at Auburn, this mathematics and basic science standard has been difficult to satisfy without cutting too deeply into the aerospace engineering content of the curriculum. ABET does allow some credit for this mathematics and basic science standard to be labeled as part of an engineering course, if it can be justified to the satisfaction of the ABET “visitor.” To justify this “allowance” in the standard, the department must convince the “visitor” that some of the designated engineering course content consists of mathematics or basic science topics. This justification is not easy to accomplish, but is sometimes essential to preserve the minimum engineering content of the curriculum. The proposed semester curriculum has 30 semester hours taught by the Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics departments. To meet the minimum 32 hours standard, two Aerospace Engineering courses have been identified as possessing one credit each of mathematics topics. Therefore, the proposed semester curriculum does meet the minimum credit hour standard for ABET in the area of mathematics and basic science.